Search Results
7/10/2025, 5:28:10 PM
>>510007932
>>510008068
First guy:
“68k is 11% of 147k?”
This is numerically false.
11% of 147,000 is 16,170, not 68,000.
So unless you're saying 68k firearms, not certificates, it’s already off.
What he should’ve asked is:
“Are you sure that number isn’t referring to weapons, not certificates?”
Second guy:
“doesn’t realise you can own more than one gun under one license”
This guy is right in concept, but he’s defending a bad stat. The fact that you can hold multiple guns per certificate is true (average is 4.2), but that actually undermines the idea that there would be 68k handgun certificates.
If handguns were 68k certificates, that would imply nearly half of all FAC holders are licensed for handguns—which is obviously false, since handguns are banned in most of the UK except NI and some special Section 5 exemptions.
So he’s using a correct point (multiple guns per cert) to defend an incorrect figure.
>>510008068
First guy:
“68k is 11% of 147k?”
This is numerically false.
11% of 147,000 is 16,170, not 68,000.
So unless you're saying 68k firearms, not certificates, it’s already off.
What he should’ve asked is:
“Are you sure that number isn’t referring to weapons, not certificates?”
Second guy:
“doesn’t realise you can own more than one gun under one license”
This guy is right in concept, but he’s defending a bad stat. The fact that you can hold multiple guns per certificate is true (average is 4.2), but that actually undermines the idea that there would be 68k handgun certificates.
If handguns were 68k certificates, that would imply nearly half of all FAC holders are licensed for handguns—which is obviously false, since handguns are banned in most of the UK except NI and some special Section 5 exemptions.
So he’s using a correct point (multiple guns per cert) to defend an incorrect figure.
6/28/2025, 11:05:02 AM
6/20/2025, 3:34:12 PM
>>508089705
“You’re both missing the forest for the Blair.”
The Conservative Party didn’t fail because they were weak. They failed because they were structurally outflanked by a deep Blairite institutional realignment that began in the late 90s.
Tony Blair didn’t just govern—he reengineered the battlefield:
He rewrote the constitutional framework (devolution, human rights, judicial activism)
He seeded the landscape with quangos, NGOs, regulatory bodies, and 'independent' institutions that all align with progressive managerial ideology
He turned government into a networked technocracy that survives regardless of who’s in Number 10
That’s why:
Any genuine conservative reform was immediately blocked or stalled by judicial review, independent panels, activist charities, or legal reinterpretation
“Conservatives” spent 14 years flailing, pushing against a Blairite gravity well they never dismantled
Now Labour is back in power—and Starmer’s entire strategy is Blair 2.0.
He’s not facing resistance because he’s working with the current, not against it.
Conclusion:
It was never about “cucks” vs “based.”
It was about one side realising they could encode their ideology into the structure of the state itself, and the other side being too cowardly—or too late—to root it out.
You weren’t voting for a party. You were voting inside Blair’s machine.
“You’re both missing the forest for the Blair.”
The Conservative Party didn’t fail because they were weak. They failed because they were structurally outflanked by a deep Blairite institutional realignment that began in the late 90s.
Tony Blair didn’t just govern—he reengineered the battlefield:
He rewrote the constitutional framework (devolution, human rights, judicial activism)
He seeded the landscape with quangos, NGOs, regulatory bodies, and 'independent' institutions that all align with progressive managerial ideology
He turned government into a networked technocracy that survives regardless of who’s in Number 10
That’s why:
Any genuine conservative reform was immediately blocked or stalled by judicial review, independent panels, activist charities, or legal reinterpretation
“Conservatives” spent 14 years flailing, pushing against a Blairite gravity well they never dismantled
Now Labour is back in power—and Starmer’s entire strategy is Blair 2.0.
He’s not facing resistance because he’s working with the current, not against it.
Conclusion:
It was never about “cucks” vs “based.”
It was about one side realising they could encode their ideology into the structure of the state itself, and the other side being too cowardly—or too late—to root it out.
You weren’t voting for a party. You were voting inside Blair’s machine.
Page 1