From Websters: police state ânoun a nation in which the police, esp. a secret police, summarily suppresses any social, economic, or political act that conflicts with governmental policy. Now do you honestly think that this accurately describes the current state of the US? If so, why don't you go ahead and briefly outline how the US fits this definition.
I do. I do not care to fullfill the request of an anonymous internet poster, most especially one on a board with which I have never spoken before. Formulate your own outline why it is not if you wish.
I can only think of the Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997 which resulted in the ban of handguns and before that you had the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 which banned center fire semi auto rifles at .222 and above. The 1997 Act could be lifted if at some point its really up to the police and the Home Office to get their act together.
The Patriot Act was one of the greatest anti-freedom ATROCITIES in American history. Bush deserves to ROT IN HELL for his part in all of that time...
Predictable response. You conspiracy nuts are all the same. Ignore or belittle anyone who questions you, and shift the burden of proof. Admit it... You don't have a solid foundation for your beliefs. You're talking straight out of your ass.
Who said anything about the point of a gun? Any weapons I may possess are strictly for self-defense. If nothing is going to change and Americans continue to lose their freedoms, the US won't be worth living in and you and I can sit and watch it go down, now can't we? And bringing up articles like this is a waste of time and talking about it is a waste of time if nothing can be done. You sound like a fatalist Zhivodka.
Seems to me you`re the one throwing first stones here. I have been nothing but cordial with you. Where is your outline bigtime? You go first... Or how about we go tit for tat and see who is right? I`ll start - 1 in 100 Americans are in prison...your turn.
I respectfully gave you the opportunity to define police state in relevant terms... you ignored that and told me to "see websters." I then defined police state for you and asked, respectfully, if you would care to elaborate on how that definition is applicable to the US. You came back with two dubious excuses for why you wouldn't discuss anything with me, and instead, in a highly predictable logically fallacious move, shifted the burden of proof and asked me to prove a negative. You made the claim that the US is living under a police state regime. When you make a claim, you should be prepared to defend it.
I really dont give a flying fuck what an anon responder wants me to do. If thats dubious, so be it. This isnt a court of law so i`m trying real hard not to laugh about "the burden of proof" comment.