Nigel Farage calls for UK gun laws to be relaxed

First topic message reminder :


Nigel Farage calls for UK gun laws to be relaxed
Ukip leader says ban on handguns brought in after Dunblane massacre is 'ludicrous'



Nigel Farage has called for firearm laws to be relaxed, calling the current ban on handguns "ludicrous".

The Ukip leader criticised the "kneejerk" restrictions on handguns imposed after the 1996 Dunblane massacre in which Thomas Hamilton killed 16 schoolchildren and a teacher before shooting himself.

The laws were brought in by Sir John Major, the then Tory prime minister, and extended to a total ban by Tony Blair's Labour government in 1997.

Asked about gun controls, Farage said: "I think proper gun licensing is something we've done in this country responsibly and well for a long time, and I think the kneejerk legislation that Blair brought in that meant that the British Olympic pistol team have to go to France to even practise was just crackers.

"If you criminalise handguns then only the criminals carry the guns. It's really interesting that since Blair brought that piece of law in, gun crime doubled in the next five years in this country."

"I think that we need a proper gun licensing system, which to a large extent I think we already have, and I think the ban on handguns is ludicrous."

Ian Mearns, Labour MP for Gateshead, said the comments were an example of "how extremely dangerous Ukip are".

"Families facing a cost-of-living crisis will find it bizarre that one of Nigel Farage's priorities would be to relax Britain's tough gun controls," he added.

The remarks come after Farage was caught in a storm over his party's 2010 election policies, which he entirely disowned this week and later described as "drivel".

The Ukip leader said he had never read the 486 pages of policy documents that were published alongside Ukip's manifesto in 2010, which included plans to repaint trains in traditional colours, bring in a uniform for taxi drivers, and ban offshore windfarms amid fears they could hurt fish.

After rejecting the entire collection of policies, he told LBC 97.3 that they were put together by Ukip's then policy chief David Campbell Bannerman, who is now a Conservative MEP.

"We had a manifesto – and I'm going to put some inverted commas around it – that was produced in 2010. It was basically a series of policy discussion papers that was put up on the website as a manifesto," he said.

"It was 486 pages long. I'm pleased to say that the idiot that wrote it has now left us and joined the Conservatives. They are very welcome to him.

"Malcolm Pearson, who was leader of Ukip at the time, was picked up in interviews for not knowing the manifesto. Of course he didn't know the manifesto. It was 486 pages of excessive detail.

"Eighteen months ago, I said I wanted the whole lot taken down off the website. We reject the whole thing. We'll start again with a blank sheet of paper. So there's nothing new in that story.

"I didn't read it. It was drivel. 486 pages of drivel. I didn't read it and nor did the party leader."

However, his attempt to distance himself from the documents was undermined on Friday, after it emerged he wrote the foreword to the party's manifesto and helped launch it at an event in London.

A video started circulating of Farage speaking as Ukip's chief spokesman at the launch of the manifesto in Westminster in 2010, promising "straight talking" about the party's policies. The Ukip leader also co-authored the summary 16-page manifesto that now appears to have disappeared from the party's website.

The 2010 policy documents – which also appear to have been blocked – detail plans such as capping the number of foreign players in football teams, bringing back "proper dress" at the theatre, scrapping paid maternity leave, allowing corporal punishment in schools and holding referendums on new places of worship such as mosques.

Other ideas included making the Circle line on the London tube circular again, investigating alleged discrimination against white people at the BBC and teaching schoolchildren more about the role of Arabs and African states in slavery.

Farage's attempt to distance Ukip from its manifesto of four years ago may put him under more scrutiny about what the party stands for in the runup to the May elections.

On Thursday, the usually assured politician floundered on live television as he was asked about the party's proposal to scrap Trident, saying he was not sure where the interviewer had got this suggestion from.

When told it was on the Ukip website, he said: "When it comes to websites, I'm not the expert."

Challenged over a compulsory dress code for taxi drivers, he said: "Do we? News to me."

And asked about a policy to repaint trains in traditional colours, Farage said: "I've never read that. I've no idea what you're talking about."

However, he said it was not "obvious nonsense" that he could cut £90bn of taxes and increase spending by £30bn, even though that would be "ambitious".

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jan/24/nigel-farage-uk-gun-control-laws-relaxed

      

sphinx wrote:Look this is simple - didge does not like guns but is unable to admit that in his dislike he is simply expressing an opinion and so has to come out with the most ridiculous statements to try and prove he is right.

More views on me and not my points, excellent.
So as seen no proof for a necessity for guns.

That is not absurd, what is absurd is your attempts to justify they are!

I shall love to hear your next poor response to this tomorrow

PhilDidge wrote:

sphinx wrote:Look this is simple - didge does not like guns but is unable to admit that in his dislike he is simply expressing an opinion and so has to come out with the most ridiculous statements to try and prove he is right.

More views on me and not my points, excellent.
So as seen no proof for a necessity for guns.

That is not absurd, what is absurd is your attempts to justify they are!

I shall love to hear your next poor response to this tomorrow

You haven't made any points - other than that any activity requiring a licence is illegal and that licenses are exceptions to laws (must throw that at a solicitor next time I see one)

I told you way back that I accept there is no necessity for guns.

I have asked you to explain why hand guns should not be given the same "exceptions" as you call them to rifles and shot guns. You have been unable to do that.

PhilDidge wrote:

grumpy old git wrote:

YES

Incorrect


It is against the law to own a car without insurance or tax, unless the registered keeper of the car officially declares that the car is permanently off road and not being driven, by filling out a Statutory Off Road Notification or SORN and sending it to the DVLA.


http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/scotland/consumer_s/consumer_cars_and_other_vehicles_e/consumer_driving_and_parking_e/consumer_wheel_clamping_s/when_your_car_can_be_clamped_or_towed_away_s.htm



Again exceptions needed

erm NO....it is perfectly legal to OWN a car without license tax or insurance

i could buy a car, stick it on my drive and sorn it forever.....the sorn is nothing to do with permission to own indeed there is provision for a "permanent sorn" where the vehicle could never be used on the road.......you do NO need a licence to OWN a car...only to drive it on the road....

sphinx wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:



More views on me and not my points, excellent.
So as seen no proof for a necessity for guns.

That is not absurd, what is absurd is your attempts to justify they are!

I shall love to hear your next poor response to this tomorrow

You haven't made any points - other than that any activity requiring a licence is illegal and that licenses are exceptions to laws (must throw that at a solicitor next time I see one)

I told you way back that I accept there is no necessity for guns.

I have asked you to explain why hand guns should not be given the same "exceptions" as you call them to rifles and shot guns.  You have been unable to do that.

I do not think there should be exceptions to shotguns or rifles, so why would would I even contemplate hand guns?

PhilDidge wrote:

sphinx wrote:Look this is simple - didge does not like guns but is unable to admit that in his dislike he is simply expressing an opinion and so has to come out with the most ridiculous statements to try and prove he is right.

More views on me and not my points, excellent.
So as seen no proof for a necessity for guns.

That is not absurd, what is absurd is your attempts to justify they are!

I shall love to hear your next poor response to this tomorrow

this from the man that exults at the loss of 70000 peoples livelyhood. the destruction of a huge slice of the rural economy and the destruction of 2 million hectares of highly valuable and ireplaceable high quality biodiversity. All for the sake of his personal prejudice, and who cannot justify even that with FACT. he has proven to be merely an ANTI with NO reason and no substance to the argument.

fact
legitimate shooters represent such a miniscule threat to society it doesnt even register
criminal acess to legitimate guns is almost non existant
removing legitimate guns would make no difference to criminal use

FACT

480,000 people shoot live quarry
Shooting supports the equivalent of 70,000 full-time jobs
Shooters spend £2 billion each year on goods and services
Shooting is worth £1.6 billion to the UK economy
Shooting is involved in the management of two-thirds of the rural land area
Two million hectares are actively managed for conservation as a result of shooting
Shoot providers spend £250 million a year on conservation
Shooters spend 2.7 million work days on conservation - the equivalent of 12,000 full-time jobs

any argument based on "no need" is spurious and indefensible since this kind of argument can be applied to many many things and just which things is subject purely to personal prejudices

cars
bikes on main roads
bike club races on roads
alcohol
fast food
the list could be extended all ways and into every corner of peoples lives....this is the way of the liberal however..control ...must have control...you WILL be assimilated you will comply.

It is noticeable that the liberal camp does, more so than any other political pursuasion encompas the ANTI (no matter WHAT that ANTI may be anti about)

grumpy old git wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:
Incorrect


It is against the law to own a car without insurance or tax, unless the registered keeper of the car officially declares that the car is permanently off road and not being driven, by filling out a Statutory Off Road Notification or SORN and sending it to the DVLA.


http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/scotland/consumer_s/consumer_cars_and_other_vehicles_e/consumer_driving_and_parking_e/consumer_wheel_clamping_s/when_your_car_can_be_clamped_or_towed_away_s.htm



Again exceptions needed

erm NO....it is perfectly legal to OWN a car without license tax or insurance

i could buy a car, stick it on my drive  and sorn it forever.....the sorn is nothing to do with permission to own indeed there is provision for a "permanent sorn" where the vehicle could never be used on the road.......you do NO need a licence to OWN a car...only to drive it on the road....

Sorry again that is an exception which means it is illegal to have something unless?

Do you understand unless means exception?

Now I really am tired, I will answer more tomorrow

PhilDidge wrote:

sphinx wrote:

You haven't made any points - other than that any activity requiring a licence is illegal and that licenses are exceptions to laws (must throw that at a solicitor next time I see one)

I told you way back that I accept there is no necessity for guns.

I have asked you to explain why hand guns should not be given the same "exceptions" as you call them to rifles and shot guns.  You have been unable to do that.

I do not think there should be exceptions to shotguns or rifles, so why would would I even contemplate hand guns?

Why should there not be exceptions for shotguns or rifles?

grumpy old git wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:




Really?
Do you need to own a licence to have some guns?

That they are illegal without one, thus many guns are already banned and you need a licence to own the exceptions to this rule.

Wrong didge...It is PERFECTLY legal to use a gun without a licence and in cetain circumstances it is perfectly legal to OWN a gun without a licence...

for instance my wife can pay for a gun and have the receipt...therefore in law SHE owns the gun...it has to be on MY license, I have to secure it and she can iuse it ONLY under my direct supervision, therefor she both owns and uses a gun without a license....... She cannot however be allowed unsupervised access to it, but only she could sell it or otherwise dispose of it since she is the legal owner of that PROPERTY.

what effectively the law states is that it is every mans right to own a gun. what this ACTUALLY means is that subject to you being of good character, having a referee to support your good character, and being medically fit, the police are OBLIGED to grant this license...that is to say you have a RIGHT to the licence (and therfore the gun to go with it) an applicant CANNOT be refused a license WITHOUT there being good cause be shown...
You do not get a licnese because some good fairy likes you or you are considered something special....you get it unless you are a bad boy...
In reality although called a licnse or permit, it is in effect neither, its is (effectively) a certificate of fitness to own.

A driving license on the other hand is a "certifcate of competance" to show you have Provwed you are capable of driving (well thats the theory), your character has nothing to do with it.

the two are simply not the same....

  

So now victor takes as fact what someone else who is pro gun states as fact.

Hilarious, they still have no necessity in society, thus any argument is rendered moot to have any

Thanks Victor once again you use others arguments, not your own!

sphinx wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


I do not think there should be exceptions to shotguns or rifles, so why would would I even contemplate hand guns?

Why should there not be exceptions for shotguns or rifles?

As stated there is no necessity for them

grumpy old git wrote:

grumpy old git wrote:

Wrong didge...It is PERFECTLY legal to use a gun without a licence and in cetain circumstances it is perfectly legal to OWN a gun without a licence...

for instance my wife can pay for a gun and have the receipt...therefore in law SHE owns the gun...it has to be on MY license, I have to secure it and she can iuse it ONLY under my direct supervision, therefor she both owns and uses a gun without a license....... She cannot however be allowed unsupervised access to it, but only she could sell it or otherwise dispose of it since she is the legal owner of that PROPERTY.

what effectively the law states is that it is every mans right to own a gun. what this ACTUALLY means is that subject to you being of good character, having a referee to support your good character, and being medically fit, the police are OBLIGED to grant this license...that is to say you have a RIGHT to the licence (and therfore the gun to go with it) an applicant CANNOT be refused a license WITHOUT there being good cause be shown...
You do not get a licnese because some good fairy likes you or you are considered something special....you get it unless you are a bad boy...
In reality although called a licnse or permit, it is in effect neither, its is (effectively) a certificate of fitness to own.

A driving license on the other hand is a "certifcate of competance" to show you have Provwed you are capable of driving (well thats the theory), your character has nothing to do with it.

the two are simply not the same....

  

Hilarious again trying to excuse guns over cars, one that is still a necessity over one that is not where both need declarations to own

The law states guns are illegal and that you need again paperwork to own some of them due to exceptions, thus it does not mean anyone has a right to own a gun because as seen there is a vetting process, thus ownership is dependent on a point of view of some other people deeming it okay

PhilDidge wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Why should there not be exceptions for shotguns or rifles?

As stated there is no necessity for them

So how are farmers and landowners supposed to control pests like crows, pigeons, and squirrels?

PhilDidge wrote:

grumpy old git wrote:

  

Hilarious again trying to excuse guns over cars, one that is still a necessity over one that is not where both need declarations to own

What declaration is necessary to own a gun?

sphinx wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


As stated there is no necessity for them

So how are farmers and landowners supposed to control pests like crows, pigeons, and squirrels?

The army!

Next

sphinx wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

Hilarious again trying to excuse guns over cars, one that is still a necessity over one that is not where both need declarations to own

What declaration is necessary to own a gun?

A licence

Next

PhilDidge wrote:

sphinx wrote:

So how are farmers and landowners supposed to control pests like crows, pigeons, and squirrels?

The army!

Next

How are the army going to control the pests?

PhilDidge wrote:

grumpy old git wrote:

erm NO....it is perfectly legal to OWN a car without license tax or insurance

i could buy a car, stick it on my drive  and sorn it forever.....the sorn is nothing to do with permission to own indeed there is provision for a "permanent sorn" where the vehicle could never be used on the road.......you do NO need a licence to OWN a car...only to drive it on the road....

Sorry again that is an exception which means it is illegal to have something unless?

Do you understand unless means exception?

Now I really am tired, I will answer more tomorrow

Oh I understand alright...which is more than YOU do

hypothetical situation

I have no driving license
no insurance
I buy a car with no mot

I stick it on my drive and tell the DVLA that its SORN-ed

NOW...do you need a licence to OWN a car?

erm...no...
do i need insurance to OWN a car...nope
do i need an mot for that car...erm ...nope....

why do yo need to SORN it...to help the dvla keep track and to prevent theft/misuse and illegal use...does it have ANYTHING to do with licensing....nope.

second hypothetical situation

I have no driving license
no insurance

I buy a car and register the car to my son but retain the receipt

he drives has a license, insures it and drives it....

who OWNS the car...I do...the registered keeper IS NOT necesarily the owner ...read your logbook!!!!!!!

you do NOT need a licencse to OWN a car...

QED

sphinx wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


The army!

Next

How are the army going to control the pests?

With the same methods used by those before who have dealt with pest control before.

PhilDidge wrote:

sphinx wrote:

What declaration is necessary to own a gun?

A licence

Next

No it isnt.

As victor pointed out his wife can buy a gun and be legal owner without having to have a licence.

PhilDidge wrote:So now victor takes as fact what someone else who is pro gun states as fact.

Hilarious, they still have no necessity in society, thus any argument is rendered moot to have any

Thanks Victor once again you use others arguments, not your own!

eh??? I take what the LAW says...

PhilDidge wrote:

sphinx wrote:

How are the army going to control the pests?

With the same methods used by those before who have dealt with pest control before.

What are those methods?

grumpy old git wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Sorry again that is an exception which means it is illegal to have something unless?

Do you understand unless means exception?

Now I really am tired, I will answer more tomorrow

Oh I understand alright...which is more than YOU do

hypothetical situation

I have no driving license
no insurance
I buy a car with no mot

I stick it on my drive and tell the DVLA that its SORN-ed

NOW...do you need a licence to OWN a car?

erm...no...
do i need insurance to OWN a car...nope
do i need an mot for that car...erm ...nope....

why do yo need to SORN it...to help the dvla keep track and to prevent theft/misuse and illegal use...does it have ANYTHING to do with licensing....nope.

second hypothetical situation

I have no driving license
no insurance

I buy a car and register the car to my son but retain the receipt

he drives has a license, insures it and drives it....

who OWNS the car...I do...the registered keeper IS NOT necesarily the owner ...read your logbook!!!!!!!

you do NOT need a licencse to OWN a car...

QED

Nope you do not understand, you have to declare again with paperwork your car is off the road, thus an exception, thus to own a car is illegal without anything.If you need someone else again an exception they also need the means so you are able to own the car
You need this declaration to make it legal

Easy!

sphinx wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


With the same methods used by those before who have dealt with pest control before.

What are those methods?

What about them, are they not able to be passed on?

sphinx wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


A licence

Next

No it isnt.

As victor pointed out his wife can buy a gun and be legal owner without having to have a licence.

So hearsay is fact now?

Hilarious

grumpy old git wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:So now victor takes as fact what someone else who is pro gun states as fact.

Hilarious, they still have no necessity in society, thus any argument is rendered moot to have any

Thanks Victor once again you use others arguments, not your own!

eh??? I take what the LAW says...

Do you, the law says it is illegal to own a gun without something does it not?

PhilDidge wrote:

grumpy old git wrote:

Oh I understand alright...which is more than YOU do

hypothetical situation

I have no driving license
no insurance
I buy a car with no mot

I stick it on my drive and tell the DVLA that its SORN-ed

NOW...do you need a licence to OWN a car?

erm...no...
do i need insurance to OWN a car...nope
do i need an mot for that car...erm ...nope....

why do yo need to SORN it...to help the dvla keep track and to prevent theft/misuse and illegal use...does it have ANYTHING to do with licensing....nope.

second hypothetical situation

I have no driving license
no insurance

I buy a car and register the car to my son but retain the receipt

he drives has a license, insures it and drives it....

who OWNS the car...I do...the registered keeper IS NOT necesarily the owner ...read your logbook!!!!!!!

you do NOT need a licencse to OWN a car...

QED

Nope you do not understand, you have to declare again with paperwork your car is off the road, thus an exception, thus to own a car is illegal without anything.If you need someone else again an exception they also need the means so you are able to own the car
You need this declaration to make it legal

Easy!

Read again.

I buy car. I am registered owner.

I have no licence.

The car is taxed, and insured to be driven by my son who does have a licence.

Actually I had that situation before SORN rules came in with the person driving the car being my then husband as I did not have so much as provisional.

PhilDidge wrote:

grumpy old git wrote:

Oh I understand alright...which is more than YOU do

hypothetical situation

I have no driving license
no insurance
I buy a car with no mot

I stick it on my drive and tell the DVLA that its SORN-ed

NOW...do you need a licence to OWN a car?

erm...no...
do i need insurance to OWN a car...nope
do i need an mot for that car...erm ...nope....

why do yo need to SORN it...to help the dvla keep track and to prevent theft/misuse and illegal use...does it have ANYTHING to do with licensing....nope.

second hypothetical situation

I have no driving license
no insurance

I buy a car and register the car to my son but retain the receipt

he drives has a license, insures it and drives it....

who OWNS the car...I do...the registered keeper IS NOT necesarily the owner ...read your logbook!!!!!!!

you do NOT need a licencse to OWN a car...

QED

Nope you do not understand, you have to declare again with paperwork your car is off the road, thus an exception, thus to own a car is illegal without anything.If you need someone else again an exception they also need the means so you are able to own the car
You need this declaration to make it legal

Easy!

no you are trying to twist your way out of your own poo didge...you stated that you have to have a LICENSE to OWN a car,,,,

SORN is not a license...you do not need a licence to own a car
furthermore a licence can be refused/withdrawn a SORN cannot....therefor it is NOT a permit to own.licnce or antything of the sort.
effectively it is your statement to the dvla that yo are not going to use it on the road, it may be a statuary necessity, but its NOT a licence...which is what YOU said you had to have to OWN a car...


give up didge...

sphinx wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

Nope you do not understand, you have to declare again with paperwork your car is off the road, thus an exception, thus to own a car is illegal without anything.If you need someone else again an exception they also need the means so you are able to own the car
You need this declaration to make it legal

Easy!

Read again.

I buy car. I am registered owner.

I have no licence.

The car is taxed, and insured to be driven by my son who does have a licence.

Actually I had that situation before SORN rules came in with the person driving the car being my then husband as I did not have so much as  provisional.

Yes read again you need documentation of your son to own the car!

Oh dear again

grumpy old git wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

Nope you do not understand, you have to declare again with paperwork your car is off the road, thus an exception, thus to own a car is illegal without anything.If you need someone else again an exception they also need the means so you are able to own the car
You need this declaration to make it legal

Easy!

no you are trying to twist your way out of your own poo didge...you stated that you have to have a LICENSE to OWN a car,,,,

SORN is not a license...you do not need a licence to own a car
furthermore a licence can be refused/withdrawn a SORN cannot....therefor it is NOT a permit to own.licnce or antything of the sort.
effectively it is your statement to the dvla that yo are not going to use it on the road, it may be a statuary necessity, but its NOT a licence...which is what YOU said you had to have to OWN a car...


give up didge...

I said very clearly you need many things to own a car and said do you want me to bring in further rules, thus a car is illegal to own without many things, you need certain things to own a car, fact sunny!

As seen whoever owns the car legal documents are needed!

OK lets get back to what methods of control are the army going use on the crows pigeons and squirrels

It makes me laugh now the desperation to justify owning a gun is now being debated over points on ownership of cars.

Truly game over and now I am going

sphinx wrote:OK lets get back to what methods of control are the army going use on the crows pigeons and squirrels

Those taught to them by people already doing this role?

I told you always one step ahead.

I have to go and will answer more tomorrow

PhilDidge wrote:

sphinx wrote:OK lets get back to what methods of control are the army going use on the crows pigeons and squirrels

Those taught to them by people already doing this role?

I told you always one step ahead.

I have to go and will answer more tomorrow

And what will those doing the role teach them?

PhilDidge wrote:

grumpy old git wrote:

eh??? I take what the LAW says...

Do you, the law says it is illegal to own a gun without something does it not?

no it doesnt...

read what I said my wife can OWN a gun without license...OWN and USE....on MY licence....
you see Didge this is where you lose it...with the law, of which you know nowt in this case....

It is bad enough for us that are well versed in this aspect of law. indeed its is a good (and untried) question as to what is actually licensed..as it is written the law seems to say that the individual is licensed, and indeed since it is the individual that is vetted, photo id'd etc etc etc you would think it is clear cut. However when examined closely the effect as opposed to the intent, is more that the firearms posessed are actually what is being registered unless and until the owner is a naughty boy.
Agreed this is a fine distinction, but it is an important (not to say interesting) one, since licensing and registering are in fact and in law two different things..

PhilDidge wrote:

sphinx wrote:OK lets get back to what methods of control are the army going use on the crows pigeons and squirrels

Those taught to them by people already doing this role?

I told you always one step ahead.

I have to go and will answer more tomorrow

why would they teach them this???
why would they surrender their occupation/pastime for nothing??

PhilDidge wrote:

grumpy old git wrote:

no you are trying to twist your way out of your own poo didge...you stated that you have to have a LICENSE to OWN a car,,,,

SORN is not a license...you do not need a licence to own a car
furthermore a licence can be refused/withdrawn a SORN cannot....therefor it is NOT a permit to own.licnce or antything of the sort.
effectively it is your statement to the dvla that yo are not going to use it on the road, it may be a statuary necessity, but its NOT a licence...which is what YOU said you had to have to OWN a car...


give up didge...

I said very clearly you need many things to own a car and said do you want me to bring in further rules, thus a car is illegal to own without many things, you need certain things to own a car, fact sunny!

As seen whoever owns the car legal documents are needed!

but not a license...stop wriggling you tadpole

grumpy old git wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

Those taught to them by people already doing this role?

I told you always one step ahead.

I have to go and will answer more tomorrow

why would they teach them this???
why would they surrender their occupation/pastime for nothing??

As this debate has got unbelievably surreal I am trying to use his own parameters. If it is accepted there is no need for shotguns/rifles who is going to control the pests - he says the army. If the army are doing it how are they doing it - he says using the same techniques as used in the past. I want to know what those techniques are.

gotcha...

sphinx wrote:

grumpy old git wrote:

why would they teach them this???
why would they surrender their occupation/pastime for nothing??

As this debate has got unbelievably surreal I am trying to use his own parameters.  If it is accepted there is no need for shotguns/rifles who is going to control the pests - he says the army.  If the army are doing it how are they doing it - he says using the same techniques as used in the past.  I want to know what those techniques are.

dont you know sphinx?...i'm surprised at a country girl like you not knowing

bren gun for pigeons

grenades down the holes for rabbits

bayonet for squirrels

RPG for foxes

and tactical nukes for that enemy of mankind ...pheasants

and minefields for grouse

sorry .....  

I couldnt resist......

''To be or not to be , whether to suffer the slings and arrows of farmers or that of the shotgun''

Phildidge 2014.


     

grumpy old git wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Do you, the law says it is illegal to own a gun without something does it not?

no it doesnt...

read what I said my wife can OWN a gun without license...OWN and USE....on MY licence....
you see Didge this is where you lose it...with the law, of which you know nowt in this case....

It is bad enough for us that are well versed in this aspect of law. indeed its is a good (and untried) question as to what is actually licensed..as it is written the law seems to say that the individual is licensed, and indeed since it is the individual that is vetted, photo id'd etc etc etc you would think it is clear cut. However when examined closely the effect as opposed to the intent, is more that the firearms posessed are actually what is being registered unless and until the owner is a naughty boy.
Agreed this is a fine distinction, but it is an important (not to say interesting) one, since licensing and registering are in fact and in law two different things..

Hilarious yes she can own it by only your documentation, which without would be illegal.

So funny how you and sphinx are getting utterly spanked on the law here

grumpy old git wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

Those taught to them by people already doing this role?

I told you always one step ahead.

I have to go and will answer more tomorrow

why would they teach them this???
why would they surrender their occupation/pastime for nothing??

Hilarious, so now you are saying the army cannot learn it from others if they are not willing to do so.

No problem, the army has learnt to adapt to may roles

grumpy old git wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


I said very clearly you need many things to own a car and said do you want me to bring in further rules, thus a car is illegal to own without many things, you need certain things to own a car, fact sunny!

As seen whoever owns the car legal documents are needed!

but not a license...stop wriggling you tadpole

Hilarious, no wriggling you have got weighed measured and left found wanting as who ever owns the car can only do so with legal documentation of someone else

sphinx wrote:

grumpy old git wrote:

why would they teach them this???
why would they surrender their occupation/pastime for nothing??

As this debate has got unbelievably surreal I am trying to use his own parameters.  If it is accepted there is no need for shotguns/rifles who is going to control the pests - he says the army.  If the army are doing it how are they doing it - he says using the same techniques as used in the past.  I want to know what those techniques are.

Right we have ways to deal with pest control do we not?

If nobody is going to teach them they import experts to teach, who then we have qualified men of the army make this a profession

Never seen such desperation from two gun freaks, who's own selfish needs are more important that denying access to guns, most amusing and not one of them can come up with a decent counter, as I have rendered all their arguments moot.     
Both so desperate they are so desperate over the legality of cars, when shown that guns are already banned, never seen such funnier desperation from two people who just got utterly schooled. The army already teaches many roles, which would incorporate this role also of pest control, which we already have much information on whether experts want to help, as we have civilians attached to help also the army already. so funny how sphinx thinks this is not possible based upon desperation to win a debate. Even worse Victor insults the army as if there are incapable of doing many civilian jobs of which they already do, a many supposedly proud of his nation insults the capacity and abilities of our troops. That is the desperation of a boy not getting his own way to have a dangerous toy.

PMSL 

 
 :D

nicko wrote:
I have to come on again with this didge,take for example the Wood pigeon A farmer has a 50 acre field of ripening corn [or wheat or barley ect] A pigeon will eat at the least twice a day,a pigeons crop will hold 2 to 3 ozs of feed,A thousand pigeon settle on the field to eat,when full they fly back into tree's to digest the food.When they have digested the food they fly back to the field to "fill up"again.would you like to work out the weight of seed they have eaten? that is just one field on one farm.how much do they eat over the whole country? it has been estimated by the n.f.u.that we lose over 1 MILLION TONS a year and that is a low estimate.ther is no other way to control pigeons except to shoot them!!! gas "bangers" are useless as pigeons get used to them in a short time.scarcrows the same.ther is no other way except shooting.

  

ONLY 50 acres ???

THAT "hobby" farmer needs to get himself a bigger property..

AND encourage some hawks and falcons back into the trees.   

PhilDidge wrote:

sphinx wrote:

As this debate has got unbelievably surreal I am trying to use his own parameters.  If it is accepted there is no need for shotguns/rifles who is going to control the pests - he says the army.  If the army are doing it how are they doing it - he says using the same techniques as used in the past.  I want to know what those techniques are.

Right we have ways to deal with pest control do we not?

If nobody is going to teach them they import experts to teach, who then we have qualified men of the army make this a profession

Yes didge we do have ways to deal with pest control (that dont require the army)

What I am trying to find out is what exactly you think the experts are going to teach the army to do using what equipment when you have banned shotguns and rifles.

PhilDidge wrote:Never seen such desperation from two gun freaks, who's own selfish needs are more important that denying access to guns, most amusing and not one of them can come up with a decent counter, as I have rendered all their arguments moot.     
Both so desperate they are so desperate over the legality of cars, when shown that guns are already banned, never seen such funnier desperation from two people who just got utterly schooled. The army already teaches many roles, which would incorporate this role also of pest control, which we already have much information on whether experts want to help, as we have civilians attached to help also the army already. so funny how sphinx thinks this is not possible based upon desperation to win a debate. Even worse Victor insults the army as if there are incapable of doing many civilian jobs of which they already do, a many supposedly proud of his nation insults the capacity and abilities of our troops. That is the desperation of a boy not getting his own way to have a dangerous toy.

PMSL 

 
 :D

Hon if debates are won or lost sphinx won this one long ago when you started declaring just about everything to be illegal only with exceptions.

I am now continuing for the amusement factor and to try and see exactly how far you are going to go in your attempt to show that your views on guns are balanced and logical.

sphinx wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:Never seen such desperation from two gun freaks, who's own selfish needs are more important that denying access to guns, most amusing and not one of them can come up with a decent counter, as I have rendered all their arguments moot.     
Both so desperate they are so desperate over the legality of cars, when shown that guns are already banned, never seen such funnier desperation from two people who just got utterly schooled. The army already teaches many roles, which would incorporate this role also of pest control, which we already have much information on whether experts want to help, as we have civilians attached to help also the army already. so funny how sphinx thinks this is not possible based upon desperation to win a debate. Even worse Victor insults the army as if there are incapable of doing many civilian jobs of which they already do, a many supposedly proud of his nation insults the capacity and abilities of our troops. That is the desperation of a boy not getting his own way to have a dangerous toy.

PMSL 

 
 :D

Hon if debates are won or lost sphinx won this one long ago when you started declaring just about everything to be illegal only with exceptions.

I am now continuing for the amusement factor and to try and see exactly how far you are going to go in your attempt to show that your views on guns are balanced and logical.

Guns are illegal except with exceptions, you were shown clearly to be wrong and yet still think you are right, you need a licence for a gun, without one they are illegal, does this point escape you hun?
So is a gun legal without a Licence?
Take your time

You are continuing for my amusement, as seen i rendered your arguments moot, ifr the army can replace the need for guns in society, you have no need for any