Anyone else think we need a US 2nd ammendment free speech act in the UK

We have freedom of expression. Not freedom of speech.. which means everyone rattles off the same vitriolic parrot points heard by someone else in a peer group. You need to have freedom of thought to allow free speech, think about that in your not so united state.

Well you need a 2nd amendment to enforce the 1st. I think that is what OP is trying to say.

just look at barr not an original fucking thought whatsoever

How do you think the two of them should be worded?

The first should be something like the government can't go after you for saying something. Full stop. If someone says something way over the line they can either be socially ostracised or potentially sued (if they were lying) by those directly affected. Include clauses about breech of privacy if someone was taking photos of someone in the bathroom or something, a jury can determine if there was a 'reasonable' expectation of privacy given the circumstances. Stuff like shouting fire in a crowded theatre can be handled by people who came to harm taking them to court. Might need to to let civil prosecutions have more teeth for it to work, but the general public having a more direct influence on the justice system would be a huge improvement from what we have now.

As for guns, maybe say that anything the average soldier might plausibly carry must be made available to the public, top-end hardware covered by the Official Secrets Act not included, so foreign powers can't easily get hold of the latest gear. 30 year old machine gun designs, on the other hand, are fair game.

The second one would require the removal of certain demographics in order to avoid the country turning into a Africa-tier warzone, but most people here wouldn't argue with that.

>How do you think the two of them should be worded?

1A: Parliament shall make such laws so as to outlaw inciting others to violence or sedition. However, government shall neither outlaw nor restrict speech that is merely bigoted, hateful, offensive, or considered fighting words. Additionally, the charge of incitement to violence shall not apply when the violence is in reaction to speech, as in the case of violent hecklers. Parliament shall also make laws so as to outlaw speech advocating imminent lawless action and criminal anarchy.

2A: The government, recognising the right of law-abiding people to keep and bear arms, including concealed arms in public, as a necessary protection against tyranny and crime, shall not infringe upon this right. The only restrictions on this right in any way, shape or form shall be that the owner be a Briton and be of sound mind, though Parliament may further restrict this right based on the individual’s criminal record. The use of lethal force in the defence of oneself, of others, and of private property, shall always be protected.

Something like that will do.

We need a real constitution to stop Parliament shitting on the bill of rights

Yup, sadly an unwritten one doesn't cut it any more.

Petitions won't get you anything. The state won't ever expand your rights without some form of physical confrontation.

Attached: L54mRos.png (1023x572, 489K)

I'm unsure about giving the government any leeway at all, even for stuff like sedition (you either have free speech or you don't and all that). If people are listening to those advocating sedition, it means the government has fucked up in a pretty big way and needs to get its act together.

Stuff like incitement to violence should really be under its own law. Break someone's car window and they deck you? Reasonable defence of property or use of force during a citizens arrest. Hitting someone because they said something you didn't like might get a pass if it was particularly insulting (let the jury decide that), but if you really want to go after them, that's what tort law is for.

As for bearing arms, I would make it so stuff covered by thing like the Official Secrets Act isn't available, or we'll end up seeing some corporation trying to get nukes or something. Other than that, everything is fair game. A single piece of high end equipment might be needed for a squad of soldiers to threaten a tank, but a few tens of thousand of basic RPGs wielded by various members of the public will be pretty threatening to any government.

At most I'd include a clause against private armies or something.

you're an idiot, what in the fuck do you think we fought a war with your dumb ass gov for 200 years ago? for those rights you twit! you gave them up, you lost all of them, you aren't a citizen, you are a serf. kys and or fuck off you no rights having slave.

>Include clauses about

Already handled by the courts

I for one do not want the UK to get a 1st or 2nd Amendment style law as they are worthless god damned trash that need to die.

Attached: 3984759834759834.jpg (1411x1912, 278K)

The official secrets act covers the GCHQ schills it also needs to go

If they weren't spending their time trying to convince people that the diverse hordes are really a good thing they wouldn't be so bad.

I'm pretty sure GCHQ has been sending people onto Jow Forums to try and stop the free speech movement. Try to call them out.

>I'm unsure about giving the government any leeway at all, even for stuff like sedition (you either have free speech or you don't and all that). If people are listening to those advocating sedition, it means the government has fucked up in a pretty big way and needs to get its act together.

My thinking is that if things are really bad then it won't matter a damn if the government tries to punish seditious speakers.

>Stuff like incitement to violence should really be under its own law.

I didn't want to cut/paste several hundred words from my stuff though :P . My full position is to start with unlimited free speech, then list all the exceptions, like incitement to violence, official secrets, etc.

>As for bearing arms, I would make it so stuff covered by thing like the Official Secrets Act isn't available

The thing I don't want to get too autistic when writing a constitution, because then you end up with 3,000 pages of verbiage.

Attached: Own The School Year Like A Hero.jpg (506x900, 73K)

There should be no restrictions on free speech and with freedom to bear arms to defend property.

Look at all these "US" posters shitting on us bongs all of a sudden.

>There should be no restrictions on free speech and with freedom to bear arms to defend property.

We're talking real life UK not AnCapistan.

Attached: 092.jpg (547x402, 58K)

>Concealed weapons generally
>Sword-sticks re-emerge as a fashion trend in the UK
>UK respected again
>Fashion spreads to US; fuels to first blood become the “cool” thing to do
>Accordingly, Sense of honor and desire for conquest re-emerges among Americans and spreads to whites in general
>Anglosphere returns to 19th century colonial mindset

Please make this happen Bong. Western civ needs it.

Attached: E6A8231B-D8F8-4B8E-8FFF-3BF3F3F69332.jpg (1235x1540, 809K)

Fair point, though arresting someone because they think their corner of the country should be independent is only likely to drum up support. It might be best to ignore them and not fuel the fire, or give the government room to fuck about with the definition of 'sedition'. Actual sedition wouldn't really need to be covered under this law anyway. Its the sovereign territory of the nation and attempts to act otherwise will not be tolerated. If someone declares their street an independent country and stops paying taxes, they get ignored on the first part and fined on the second.

If you add exceptions, someone will try and add more. The Official Secrets Act would only cover those who signed it and once it gets outside of them its probably not much of a secret anymore. If someone incites violence, let the victim sue them and let the court apply a much harsher penalty than currently allowed (criminal liable used to be a thing).

i support you britbongs

Attached: 1526839828088.jpg (1024x819, 100K)

Could be GCHQ has learned what VPN's are or it's that the GCHQ has got the NSA to schill for them.

Russia could invade and quickly conquer any European country if they wanted to. Most European countries have been thoroughly defanged, by their own volition, and can't put up any sort of fight in a regular war. Their military is understaffed, underfunded and obsolete or in disrepair.

This is not some "Russian Boogeyman" complaint; just the fact that Europeans by and large, particularly the young ones, are decadent pacifists, whereas Russians are not.

All it takes is for the US to stay out of it.

dont kid yourself, once the government takes away a right, they are never gonna give it back.
you think a petition is gonna make the state allow its taxslaves to have guns or speech? stop being so naive.

dont kid yourself, once the government takes away a right, they are never gonna give it back.
you think a petition is gonna make the state allow its tax slaves to have guns or speech? stop being so naive.

You need Cromwell 2.0
You also need a license to post here.

>Completely unrestricted freedom of speech
This has never existed. The absolute best case scenario is wherein private citizens can refer to English common law style system where damages can be sought for defamation/libel.

>Please make this happen Bong. Western civ needs it.
Just so long as imperial subjects are not given citizenship ;) .

>Fair point, though arresting someone because they think their corner of the country should be independent is only likely to drum up support.

I'd call that secession not sedition, but regardless, I think Northern Ireland showed how you can beat secessionists. Very roughly, make it a police action, aim for about 3:1 casualties in their favour, and talk them to death.

>If you add exceptions, someone will try and add more.

Sure, but constitutions need to be amendable to some degree. You could make it very easy to undo amendments though, so if people add a hate speech exception, the next decent government can just undo it with a simple vote.

Attached: Children & Firearm Safety.jpg (960x734, 92K)

the usa decided to light its Constitution on fire over child porn

the 1986 Child Sexual Abuse and Pornography Act needs to be repealed, and an act needs to be passed that makes it an offense punishable by summary execution---equivalent to being a traitor---to waste taxpayer money subverting the Constitution if you are a federal, state, or local government employee

when you steal my money and pretend to protect me, don't light the Constitution on fire, you fucking pig

What's the problem for the descendent of Holy Roman Empire, based Orthodox Russians to occupy Western Europe?

I meant unrestricted by the government. Suing people for libel would still be a thing.

It was actually brought in as a response to all the duels the sons of the aristocracy were dying in.

>*Blocks your path*

Attached: 137BD3E9-8CB0-475D-BF1E-4BAA0D0E864D.jpg (1242x1182, 799K)

teaching teens to shoot pistols is marksmanship

the issue of safety is a matter of procedure when handling firearms

teens learn firearm safety in marksmanship class

you are bringing up a topic in education and trying to turn it into a funny political cartoon

teaching firearm safety in marksmanship class is serious

you are trying to pretend that firearm safety is a laughing matter

>teens

That's your problem right there.

Attached: Please Fuck Off Back To Reddit.jpg (396x382, 80K)

>ASKING the already corrupt oppressive government for the right to be armed and resist them
Hahahahaaaahahhahahaahahhaa you fucking idiot

Only way in hell you're ever going to get gun rights is by literally shipping them in by the cargoship load, forcing an armed resistance, and toppling your current government. Killing every last one of them and rewriting your nations constitution.

Don't get me wrong I'd be absolutely tickled pink if you pulled it off but that is never ever going to happen. You allowed butter knives to be illegal. It is now a wrong think crime to even report muslim illegal activity with an expedited illegal sentencing where you are stabbed like then 24 hours after having the audacity to question authority. There are cameras fucking everywhere recording everything so even the kindling of a resistance would be smashed instantly.

The only realistic avenue of victory is if you somehow got foreign intervention.

Attached: 4356345734.gif (500x499, 918K)

>Hurr durr
What are you, American? Standing armies are for 3rd world shitholes, industrial capacity is all that matters.
Germany in 1930 had basically no army at all, 5 years later it was one of the best.
If that was possible with 1930's infrastructure, in current conditions Germany could gear up in under a year (nvm literally 1000s of mothballed tanks).

Unless you have no capacity to quickly build up a military, there is no reason to keep a massive standing army just jerking off.
Unless you're the US and have the strategic goal of entering random wars on the fly, of course.

You literally are having your country's population replaced within a single generation. You have absolutely zero right to hold any kind of opinion besides violent resistance. Stop posting on Jow Forums and save your nation hans.

>Modern Germany
>Military culture remnants of Prussian monarchy

IIRC WW1 German army was at least 6 million , which was ~10 % of entire population. That culture is gone user, at least on the country-wide scale.

Attached: EF6AB1D1-BDC3-4B68-BDCC-7D87092E7581.png (500x433, 60K)

>what in the fuck do you think we fought a war with your dumb ass gov for 200 years ago?
Tax dodging and trading with the enemy?

This.

Restrictions are dangerous because they will become subjective, given enough time, allowing politicians and courts to creatively weaken, and eventually remove, your rights.

Hell, take a look at the US’s 2nd Amendment, not a single exception yet the right to keep and bear arms has been seriously eroded by treasonous politicians and judges.

Good luck.

>What are you, American? Standing armies are for 3rd world shitholes, industrial capacity is all that matters.

These days a lot of kit is fairly complex you know.

>Germany in 1930 had basically no army at all, 5 years later it was one of the best.

Because its standing army kept the key traditions and teachings alive.

>If that was possible with 1930's infrastructure, in current conditions Germany could gear up in under a year (nvm literally 1000s of mothballed tanks).

I don't know, how quickly can a modern BMW factory be retooled for panzer production?

>Unless you have no capacity to quickly build up a military, there is no reason to keep a massive standing army just jerking off.

Massive? Perhaps not, unless you're close to someone who DOES have a big army. In this context though, you're up against the goddamn Russians - if they decide to invade you won't have a few years to build yourself a new Wehrmacht.

>Fuck me harder, Uncle Sam!

Communists are people!- -Broken people that need to be eliminated from the population so they don't ruin society.

No. "broken people" implies they can be fixed.

Your government is literally the reason we have those.

Reminder that it was JEWISH groups like the ADL who ruined free speech online and off. All of the anti-white hate crimes laws and hate speech laws were passed because of JEWISH pressure groups. From 2009

UN AND ADL WANT GLOBAL HATE CRIMES LAWS

By Rev. Ted Pike
5 Nov 09

In a speech last week at the Anti-Defamation League's 2009 annual meeting, UN Secretary-General Ban-Ki-moon assured ADL that the UN shares its ambition of international sanctions against nations which do not enforce laws against "intolerance." (ADL is architect of hate crimes laws in nearly all nations of the western industrialized world.)

Jews ruined free speech on you tube and the internet

Can ADL End 'Cyber-Hate'
On YouTube?

By Rev. Ted Pike
12-15-8

Many are worried by YouTube's recent announcement of collaboration with the Anti-Defamation League to eliminate "cyber-hate" on its website. If YouTube gives ADL too much control, free speech there may be a thing of the past for critics of Zionism or Christian critics of homosexuality. Censorship of the internet is especially ominous when driven by definitions of "prejudice" and "hate" as twisted as ADL's.

But there is hope. Most non-Zionist internet organizations and servers do not share ADL's extreme, even paranoid definitions of hatred, anti-Semitism, and homophobia. If internet content is factual, well-documented, non-racist and not actually anti-Semitic, ADL will encounter difficulty persuading YouTube to ban large numbers of politically incorrect users.
rense.com/general84/canadl.htm

Gun smuggling would be off the charts, lol.

To late, sword canes are already banned in the UK.

No, but I think this thread needs more Karen.

Attached: 7a2.gif (600x622, 225K)

When will the Brits finally wake all the way up? Your government is openly allowing crimes of war to happen to your people and kidnapping you when you call them out on it. You think it's going to get better? Look at America, 100 year slide since multiculturalism took root. We used to be the richest country in the world, now we are about to be 2nd to a country that hasn't in thousands of years created anything of merit. Muh, freedom. 400 years of slavery is enough, end it now.

Do you live under a rock? With today’s military technology, absolutely no country would be afforded a year to gear up if targeted. If, say, Russia wanted to invade Germany, the majority of your infrastructure would be destroyed within the first week. But we both know Russia wouldn’t because the United States has been your standing army since WWII.

We literally have military bases in your country. You’re welcome, even though you’re an idiot.