Just sayin’

-Stolen from Angel’s FB page

This entry was posted in funny pics. Bookmark the permalink.

59 Responses to Just sayin’

  1. JeremyR says:

    And in jolly old England, if you defend yourself, you are in bigger trouble than the perp.

    • Jack Russell says:

      You are perfectly entitled to use ‘reasonable’ force to protect yourself from being attacked in the UK.
      So long as the force is proportionate, there’s no problem.
      What isn’t acceptable, is to kill someone when there is a ‘reasonable’ (that pesky word again!) alternative.
      It is generally considered ‘reasonable’ to avoid conflict wherever possible, but it is also ‘reasonable’ to use deadly force if no other option is available to protect yourself. If other options are available, resorting to deadly force as a first option would not be considered ‘reasonable’ in the eyes of UK law.
      It seems quite reasonable to me.

      • SAM says:

        You are perfectly entitled to use ‘reasonable’ force and go to jail as.
        A bit off subject but to tell you how bad it is in the UK look up former soldier Paul Clarke. He found a sawn off shotgun in the street and handed it to the police (I will say how he did it was a bit odd) and got arrested for possessing the gun. He was found guilty of that offence by a jury – they did find 12 of ‘reasonable’ people. Because possession of a firearm is a strict liability offence, (you can not have it for any reason no mater how‘reasonable’) Clarke’s intent in handing it in was deemed to be irrelevant. He got a 12-month sentence, suspended for one year, more than Lavinia Woodward got stabbing someone. It was only after the newspapers got on to it that the Judge dropped the five years in prison he said he was going to get.

        • Jack Russell - England says:

          The mistake Clarke made was in not informing the police at the time he found the weapon. The question has to be asked – why did he keep it for four days before handing it in, knowing full well that possession was a serious offence?
          I know that most people who found a weapon in the UK would be straight on the phone to tell the police, unless they were either stupid or had ulterior motives.

    • Andrew says:

      You can get more time and worse time actually saying things against your ‘asian’ (read here, Fucking Muslim Ass-Monkey Goat-Fuckers) than for hitting a bunch of people with a car and screaming “Aloha Snack-bar” or for using nail-bombs, or for stabbing people, or for throwing acid on people.

      Even if, as a muzzie ass-clown camel dong-sucker, you manage to blow a 747 out of the sky, they’ll let you go from prison for ‘compassionate reasons’ if you allude to, but not prove, that you have a fatal cancer. Yet, if you, as a non-muslim who was convicted and sentenced for speaking out against the ‘Religion of Peace (and fucking goats, sucking camel-dicks, and rampant homosexuality (as long as your partner was ‘asleep’ during the act, you aren’t gay)) , you won’t get protective custody and the rag-head dindoo mother-fuckers will cap your ass within 1-2 years (if you’re lucky) while the guards stand around and see nothing, thus effectively making your 10-15 year sentence a death penalty.

      Hey, UK. Glad we ditched you back in 1775/1776. (Do we count the ditch date to when we started actively resisting, or when we told them to fuck off (in a nice way?))

      • Jack Russell - England says:

        Top rant – kudos to you!

        • JeremyR says:

          You have my heart felt sympathy. When the Paris treaty was negotiated, the Brits wisely decided to make the petulant children, Us, an ally rather than an adversary. We have had each other’s backs for well over 200 years, with a tiff or two, but allies none the less. It seems the whole civilized world is in decline while the animal masses are gaining strength. Soon the powers that be on your side of the pond will wake to what calamity they have brought upon themselves, then it will be time to build a causeway to France, or Ireland, your choice, with the bodies of the pedophile following, goat molesting woman hating invaders.
          So the question you need to decide upon is do you want Wine, or Whiskey?

  2. brazos says:

    The gif is so wrong, no one in Britain has teeth that good!

  3. RottyLover says:

    @Brazos Snort!

  4. Jack Russell - England says:

    I don’t particularly want to get involved in the American 2nd Amendment political debate as that is a surely internal affair; indeed, I generally support the right for some to carry an appropriate sidearm for personal protection.
    What us Brits find baffling, is why anyone should be allowed to own military grade weaponry and as much ammunition as they can store. What advantages does a semi automatic assault rifle have, that makes it preferable to any other type of gun in a legal civilian situation?
    Genuine question…..we really don’t understand why anyone should have access to such equipment unless they are in the military, or in law enforcement.
    Can someone explain?

    • Wirecutter says:

      Our Second Amendment is to protect us from an oppressive government. That is laid out very clearly in the writings of our Founding Fathers. It’s kinda hard to do that when they’ve got the latest and greatest and we’re limited to single shot or bolt action firearms – by that same oppressive government.
      It’s not about sport or hunting to feed our families – it’s all about killing the motherfuckers that try to take our God given Rights.

      • Jack Russell - England says:

        Thanks for the reply Kenny.
        I understand the legalities of it all; it’s just the mindset that we have difficulty in understanding.
        I guess that’s the difference between our two democracies.
        Although similar in many ways, there has always been a huge difference in each of our countries outlooks. That’s not to say either is right or wrong; we’re the same – only different…..

        • Cederq says:

          Let me try to explain it to you Mr. Jack Russel. King George, Revolutionary America, Oppressive taxes, Quartering of Soldiers in our homes, confiscation of our guns, cannons and gun powder. Do you need any more of a history lesson?

          • Wirecutter says:

            He asked a simple question and you’re coming across kinda short, at least to me.
            As he said, the English mindset is different than ours.

            • Jack Russell - England says:

              Exactly Kenny. I believe you and I have a great deal in common, if you’re ever in Devon – look me up and I’ll buy you a pint.

            • Cederq says:

              Ken, I don’t think I was being short, English subjects did enjoy being armed to just previous to WW1. They owned and shot what back then would be military grade weapons. So I don’t understand Jack Russell’s “mindset” seems to me more of brainwashing and heavy doses of propaganda. I have English relatives and when they come on holiday to see me they absolutely love shooting my arms, and have waxed numerous times about they wish they had the same freedom of firearms that we do here.

        • ed357 says:

          Democracy in England…..

          I thought you had a Queen and the Royals?

    • Angel says:

      Jack Russell, I can explain it in two words: American Revolution. Armed citizens against your Army. Got it?

    • Heathen says:

      “What us Brits find baffling, is why anyone should be allowed to own military grade weaponry and as much ammunition as they can store…”
      ———————————-

      It’s the nature of the freeman.

      Lexington & Concord April 18, 1775.

      “Facing the threat of rebellion, British General Thomas Gage hoped to prevent violence by ordering the seizure of weapons and powder ..”

      https://www.civilwar.org/learn/revolutionary-war/battles/lexington-and-concord

      • Heathen says:

        And on April 15,1775, they were not American citizens, yet. That would have to wait until 1776 and the Declaration of Independence. On April 19, 1775 they were simply loyal British subjects who believed that they were standing up to defend and fight for their rights.

        That also was an “internal affair”.

        • Heathen says:

          Should have read April 18,I’ve no idea why the 15th & 19th were typed in by me.

          (Retired, no longer pay attention to the dates LOL ! )

          • JeremyR says:

            Actually it was May 12, 1784 when the Treaty of Paris took effect. Until that time The colonists were subjects in revolt.

      • NewVegasBadger says:

        The best and brightest of the Brits were murdered off during both world wars. What those Brits also find baffling is this concept called Liberty. They still don’t understand our desire to be free from them and their damn socialism. The only good socialist is a dead socialist.

      • warhorse says:

        Gage was looking for stolen powder, muskets, and cannon taken from portsmouth,NH..they suspected the lexington militia of having at least one of the stolen cannons..and they were right! it was later used at the battle of bunker hill.

        http://www.nhssar.org/essays/FortConstitution.html

        sure, he likely would have confiscated any other “war material” he found, but that wasn’t the point of marching out of boston that day…

    • rayvet says:

      Jack Russell, as mentioned above me, this is where other citizens of other countries as well as the liberals in our fall short of understanding the point behind the second amendment. Had nothing to do with putting meat on your table. It was all about keeping the government in check. And remember, it was one of the reasons the emporer of Japan chose not to attack our mainland. There’s many a good reasons why “we the people” should be allowed to have any weapon we want and can afford especially when it comes to our self preservation.

    • SAM says:

      “What us Brits find baffling” speak for your self. There are no real difference between military grade weaponry and civilian. A M16 is a military gun, a AR-15 is a civilian gun and both shoots the same round in the same way a Ruger Mini 14.. If someone can be trusted with guns and ammo they can be trusted with all why limit them,

    • JeremyR says:

      Looking at more recent history, ninety years ago, the people in Germany had the right to have arms. During Hitler’s rise to power, the Weimar Republic enacted the 1928 Law on Firearms and Ammunition to control the violence. Guess who didn’t surrender their guns.
      In 1938 Hitler stepped up the confiscation and sealed his control.
      The U.S.A. has had presidents who could have been as bad or worse than Hitler. We have a long history of guns being used to stop local tyrannical leaders.
      While liberals mouth off about controlling guns, the plain and hard truth is that guns are the most used method of population control in liberal strongholds through out the nation which gives us most of our homicide deaths. Outside of those bastions, it is pretty much shooting rabbits, deer, paper targets and chicken killing coons. See Heyjackass.com for more details.

    • Andrew says:

      I could toss a bunch of ‘Rah-Rah ‘Murica’ stuff at you, but let’s put it in a slightly different perspective.

      Say something untowards happens in a large city in England, like, oh, say, an armed uprising by your ‘asian’ citizens (you know, the ones the rest of us call ‘muslims’.) Your police are overwhelmed, and in revolt, and your army is overwhelmed, and in revolt, because both of those organizations are busy shooting at each other because of, well, muslims in the ranks.

      How do you protect you and yours? With a single or double barreled break-action shotgun that you keep at the local gun-club?

      Please read up on the historic stand of the shopkeepers in Los Angeles in 1992, most of them of Korean descent, who protected their property by using ‘military grade’ weapons against the rioters, looters, thugs, arsonists, malcontents, anarchists, assholes, racists, jerks and low-lifes who burnt down their neighborhoods because of one dumb-ass piece of shit named Rodney King.

      Or how are you going to protect you and yours against some fugitives who broke out of prison down the road, said fugitives being known murderers, rapists, politicians (the worst) and overall bad people?

      Most of the really high-power stuff we ‘Muricans fondle and play with isn’t even ‘military grade’ stuff, until the Military says something like “Hot-Damned, that stuff looks good. We want that.” Think I am joking? Look at the development of the military grade M16. Derived from a civilian gun. Lots of the originally weird, and now easy to find calibers are because ‘Wildcatters’ wanted more performance out of their guns, so they went playing and modifying and ended up with some supremely nice stuff. .270 Winchester. The whole spectrum of ‘Magnum’ calibers, especially pistol rounds. And even down to a lot of the accessories. Our military is finally getting around to accepting P-Mags. During the 2nd Gulf War and Afganistan War, our troops could, and did, go to civilian manufacturers and suppliers to get stuff like red-dot sights and other accessories, that weren’t originally considered military grade, for their military-issued weapons. (I even helped some guys buy better ammo (civilian grade) than they were issued. Lots of people did.)

      Heck, here in the USA, the word ‘Mil-Spec’ is used to describe a piece of equipment that was designed to be mishandled and still function. So when we go to a store and see a gun, or a tent, or a radio, that is listed as ‘mil-spec’, then we know it is usually safe to hand it to an 18yoa male with Attention Deficit Disorder, Epilepsy, and a bad case of Acne. (Versus that fine, fine English hunting rifle, or German drilling, or beautiful Japanese trap gun, or anything made by H&K.)

      Also, please remember that we, the United States, were invaded by foreign forces in 1915-1916. Pancho Villa and his bunch of ‘Revolutionaries’ (supported by a version of the Mexican government) crossed the US-Mexico border and raided our towns, took our stuff and killed our people. Would have been different if our border towns were all ‘military grade’ weaponed up and ready to repulse these attacks, but most of the people at that time were only armed with ‘cowboy’ weapons.

      During WWII, we sent bazillions of weapons to be used by the citizens of England in defense of their nation (which, the ungrateful government, destroyed after the war was over, the bastards.)

      So, to sum it all up, I will quote part of the oath of office of every politician (well, except maybe those in California and Massachusetts) and every policeman and serviceman and nationalized citizen. “To defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Can you defend you and yours against all enemies, foreign and domestic, or have your rights been stripped away until you and yours are so much wheat waiting to be harvested?

      • FriscoKid says:

        Excellent.

      • Jack Russell, England says:

        Thanks for the reply. Some interesting stuff there.
        May I say that in my 63 years of living in the UK, I have never been in, or seen, any situation that made me feel that I needed personal protection in the form of a firearm. I have lived in the second largest city in the UK and in smaller towns and villages. I have worked in London at times. In all that time, I have only personally known one person who has been the victim of a physical assault. Basically, I feel safe wherever I go. I find it difficult to equate your dystopian view of UK society with my reality.
        That’s not to say that we don’t have our problems. It’s just that we deal with them in a different manner.

    • Well for one thing you Brits attacked us TWICE. Three times if you count sending Piers Morgan to us as an act of war (and I do). Who’s to say that if we as CITIZENS of a FREE republic were armed with only our fowling pieces you Brits wouldn’t try it again?

      • Wirecutter says:

        Past history, my friend, and Britain is no longer the world power she once was.
        But I agree wholeheartedly about Piers Morgan.

      • Jack Russell, England says:

        The world has moved on a long way in 200 years rick”oldawg”c.
        I don’t think you need fear another attack from this side of the pond.
        As for Piers Morgan, well, he’s an opinionated twat – every country has them. We’ll swap him for Bonnie Greer as a gesture of goodwill.

        • My point was that if even you civilized Brits would attack us who else is waiting. TIC it was meant. As for that shrill black power shrew Greer, well you just keep her. I bet she’s doing wonders for British unification. See? I’m just full of goodwill also.

          • I’ll add that Morgan is entertaining all three of CNNs remaining viewers so pretty much out of sight anyway.

          • Jack Russell, England says:

            I just wish the shit stirring bitch would butt out. The trouble is that she seems to be the darling of the liberal luvvies who are so empowered by our ‘unbiased’ BBC.

  5. Jesse in DC says:

    Well, here in America, that is how it goes. As it happens I have a few Enfield rifles, from WW1 and WW2. Those are real actual battle rifles, and most of mine are likely blooded. I believe they are still available in Merrie Olde England…If you jump through enough hoops. Must suck to be a subject, and not a citizen.
    It is not the weapon that is dangerous, it is the man holding it.

    • Judy says:

      “…suck to be a subject, and not a citizen.” I would take this statement one step further. ‘We The People’ are ‘Sovereign Individuals’ not merely citizens.

      What most of the English speaking world doesn’t understand is the USA gained its freedom from Great Britain after a bloody revolution. We didn’t just petition Parliament/The Crown for our right to self rule (Canada, Australia, New Zeeland). We fought and died for it. Makes a big difference. Probably the only other country that might come close to understanding our mindset is India.

      The British tried to disarm us, Lexington comes to mind. The Mexicans tried to disarm Texas, that didn’t end well for the Mexican government, either.

    • Jack Russell, England says:

      I agree – ‘It’s not the weapon that is dangerous, it is the man holding it’.
      But why make it so easy for a dangerous man to obtain a powerful weapon?
      That is the thing I dont understand.

      • Judy says:

        Because you can’t tell the ‘good guys’ from the ‘bad guys’.

        • Jack Russell, England says:

          Maybe we should be looking for better systems to differentiate between the two?
          The problem, as I see it, with having so many guns in the system, is that a minor altercation can rapidly escalate into a deadly situation if a firearm is readily to hand. People tend to lose all reason when their dander is up. There are times someone has enraged me to the point that I thought, momentarily, of causing them serious harm. What might have happened if I had a gun in my pocket at the time? I dread to think.

          • crazyeighter says:

            “An armed society is a polite society.”~~ Robert A. Heinlein

            My right to self-defense is not governed by your lack of self control.

          • Heathen says:

            So,just because you thought that if you were armed that you would have visited “serious harm” upon another doesn’t mean everyone has those thoughts.

            “Projection” is the name for what you’re doing with that statement. Those who would disarm us have trotted out that scenario often. It doesn’t hold true.

            • Jack Russell, England says:

              Anyone can snap if pushed too far. I’m just saying that the unintended consequences can be far more serious if guns are involved.
              I really don’t know what the solution is for countries, such as the USA, where guns are so embedded in their culture.
              From my point of view, both sides seem to come up with cogent arguments as to the veracity of their case.
              It’s akin to the immovable object meeting the irresistible force. Unsolveable.

  6. Steven Y. says:

    Given the state of firearms technology and military equipment at the time, if the Right acknowledged in the Second Amendment were to keep pace with the the First Amendment (as an example) private civilian/civic community group ownership of belt fed support weapons, artillery, armored fighting vehicles, ballistic bombardment missiles, jet powered ground attack & air superiority aircraft should all be commonly accepted. The fact that it is not should be an embarrassment to Constitutionalists everywhere in this nation.

    The British Army marched out of Boston to sieze military grade weapons, cannon, and supplies. All of which could be immediately used by the same British Army to suppress Colonial rebellion. Our stuff was just as good as their stuff.

    We fought the Crown and won. British subjects kept the Crown, and are where they are today.

    • JeremyR says:

      The British Army marched out of Boston to sieze military grade weapons, cannon, and supplies. All of which could be immediately used by the same British Army to suppress Colonial rebellion. Our stuff was just as good as their stuff.
      Not quite right. Back then, what the colonists had was better quality, more accurate, better crafted, you get the picture. In fact, up until the Post WW2 period, military weapons were vastly inferior to civilian stuff. Heck, even today, the best sniper rifles are modified hunting rifles.
      For an infantry weapon, most civilian stock is lacking only the full auto capability which really is not needed in most cases. A soldier can burn through his entire basic load, 210 rounds, in about a minute, when panicked, with full auto. The three round burst limits it just a touch. I am not against private ownership of full autos either though, they are fun to shoot, expensive to feed, fun to shoot, a bitch to maintain… Did I mention fun to shoot?

  7. Hey Ken. Check this shit out. It`s from a Site in Holland, (I think). It is well done, but these
    Fuckers don`t have a clue. Most of the comments are lame, but some bash the French
    Pussies, some comment on Switzerlands gun policies, etc. Check it out when You have
    a minute.
    Scott

  8. Okie says:

    Mutha Fucker…..
    Someone took a whiz in my Cheerios !
    I simply refuse to entertain an explanation to a subject of the crown…. Has there not been sufficient history to provide an answer to your question?
    I don’t like my old lady to tell me what to do, and I love her ! Fuck you and your arrogant, pompous, intellectual superiority !

Comments are welcome. Trolls will be banned and then shot.