The UK law banning handguns is one thing. Passing and enforcing a law that destroys priceless antique guns is senseless and stupid.
As for the ammo you are allowed a certain amount before the Law considers it "stockpiling". I do not know what the difference is between owning ammo, whording ammo, or stockpiling ammo is but satockpiling is bad.
So on balance, it's not such a bad thing that the man was denied his enormous collection of irresponsibly handled, illegally possessed weaponry.
I believe that's what I said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDarkInvader
As with all these "British justice system does something totalitarian" threads, I'd love to know what else, feasibly, should have been done.
All of them; so when we authorised the use of evidence obtained by torture in courts, (before it was overturned,) there was nothing else to be done? Britain has always been a nasty country in international affairs, now we get to see that turned on our citizens. Yay!
In this case they should have taken his guns and slapped him with a small fine, he's 60 odd years old pursuing an interest in guns that was made illegal by the government, it's not like he was running down the street taking pot-shots at everything. Five years in prison is immesurably harsh for such a minor offence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrFancypants
It's a dark day for freedom and democracy when people start disobeying laws which were passed by a democratically elected government because they disagree with them.
As history has demonstrated a democratically elected government can be in the wrong just as easily as a dictatorship.
That something is the law is not reason enough to follow it.
If we universally followed all laws simply because they were passed democratically then we'd end up living in a terrible world where people surrendered all moral will over the government. While people doing what they think is right can often make people criminals I prefer a world where people are free to rebel against injustice than a world where we all follow the law for no better reason than because we've been told to do so by the government.
What's the big deal? He broke the law, so he's in trouble.
How is that incompatible with democracy?
It's not like the government was ignoring one of the fundamental freedoms, like freedom of speech or freedom of religion. It's simply the case that you do not in Britain have the freedom to stockpile weapons and ammo and especially not to sell them unauthorized.
If someone doesn't like the laws as they are, they can vote for a different political party and hope they make a difference, but they can't just break the law cause they don't like it.
And honestly, i'm happy the guy was arrested. Stockpiling huge amounts of firearms and live ammo and selling them illegally is something that should be a crime.
All of them; so when we authorised the use of evidence obtained by torture in courts, (before it was overturned,) there was nothing else to be done? Britain has always been a nasty country in international affairs, now we get to see that turned on our citizens. Yay!
No, just all these relatively recent right-wing propaganda threads in which an overblown reaction to something the thread-starter does not consider a crime by the local police force is paraded as proof of the increasingly totalitarian nature of European governments, without the ability to make this conclusion match the the actual facts in the absense of the usual tired rhetoric. When it's something that clearly occurs on both sides of the Atlantic, like draconian anti-terror legislation, I'm afraid I don't hear this level of complaint from the same people.
It's one thing to say that the penalty was too severe - I would probably agree, though illegally selling firearms is not such a small matter...it's the suggestion that the man's democratic rights have been violated by his being arrested when he had committed a crime and was proved to have done so, that I find absurd. A sadly unsurprising position, as though we in the UK should be using the US constitution with its "right to bear arms" as a basis for deciding when our democratic rights are being violated.
IMHO he should ahve been given a fine and house arrest.
He should have been forced to turn over all weapons and ammo BUT weapons deemed of a valuable and collectible nature should have been returned to the owner PROVIDINGthat he can show that he has adequate and secure storage facilities for them.
I ahve a friend who inherited a number of guns from his father in law. Some of his guns are very rare, some of the rarest are several 17th century muzzle loading shotguns.
No way would I ever get rid of those, especially the shotguns.
This site is part of the Defy Media Gaming network
The best serving of video game culture, since 2001. Whether you're looking for news, reviews, walkthroughs, or the biggest collection of PC gaming files on the planet, Game Front has you covered. We also make no illusions about gaming: it's supposed to be fun. Browse gaming galleries, humor lists, and honest, short-form reporting. Game on!
The Pub 
Re: Britain's new political prisoner: 
Linear Mode
