Re: Britain's new political prisoner:
 

The chances of a law being unjust in a democracy are rather small. If they are you can start a civil rights movement or something similar in order to change them.
If you just ignore laws which you don't like you end up in chaos. Just look at Iraq, life there doesn't seem so much better than in Europe.

Re: Britain's new political prisoner:
 

Exactly. Of course, this is the big assumption. The British people keep making these laws under the belief that this kind of persecution will never happen to them personally.

Just like the intellectuals under Lenin's regime never expected to end up in front of a firing squad themselves.

The people who support the patriot act of course believe that they will never come under suspicion themselves.

What the hell? Are there no roads in Britain?:lookaround:

You read his mind? Impressive. You need to teach me that trick some time.

Oh yeah, as if he couldn't hang a paper target on a tree on his property.

To fellow gun collectors he knew personally.

Almost all of them were in a hidden container. Did you even read the article?

Re: Britain's new political prisoner:
 

I guess we're not talking about gun regulations anymore then. People who support/draft gun regulations are rather unlikely to end up being "persecuted" under them.

It's still an analogy. ;)

His ability to use the weapons is limited to his own property, and even that's probably too dangerous if his house is too small to properly store all his weaponry (I know if I owned a real gun I couldn't fire it anywhere near my own property). There are not a lot of places he can put ammunition to use. And according to the article he did not make use of his gun club membership. Hence, no "roads".He kept them all over his house, hiding some in a false water tank nowhere near capable of storing even half of his 111 firearms. I did indeed read the article, quite carefully. :)

Re: Britain's new political prisoner:
 

If the police were to search your house with the intention of persecuting you, they could easily find a dozen things that violate various codes.

That's the whole point of gun control and the rest of big government. It makes us all criminals in some fashion, so we no longer have any legitimacy or ability to stand up to them.

One that you have killed. ;)

Wrong - he had a road - ammunition and a gun membership. He simply didn't choose to use them.

According to your reasoning, a person who chooses not to drive his car shouldn't be allowed to have one.

That's the problem with not being familiar with guns - you don't know much about their storage and use.

Being so familiar, I can tell you about that. You don't have to have a safe - he most likely had them in various cabinets and the like. (Especially since Big Brother has banned them, I doubt he would be dumb enough to leave them all in plain sight)

Re: Britain's new political prisoner:
 

I was being sarcastic, but not about the us being democratic. The US was one of the first countries to give representative democracy a try. If we don't like whats being done we vote our representives out of office. We're very democratic.

The sarcasim was directed towards a great deal of europeans that think the US is backwards. Seems like on the issue of gun laws the US is one of a few countries that hasn't lost its balls.

Re: Britain's new political prisoner:
 

Its not unusual for a person who has led a sheltered life to see someone who has not as a "barbarian".

That's the principle behind the whole revisionist history movement. They look at the people who made our way of life possible and say "Ooh ooh, how barbaric!"

Re: Britain's new political prisoner:
 

Many murderers in the UK don't even get a five year sentence, for a man his age, this a a life sentence, he's 66, he won't last five years in prison. The sooner this gang of real criminals called the Labour government is booted out the better.

Re: Britain's new political prisoner:
 

Except the difference is that this is grey area, and should not be left to arbitrary judgement. A gov't oppressing its citizens is a much clearer issue.

If they have that fear they should address it by defending their homes in some matter, better locks, an alarm, or even firearms. Owning a firearm does not harm anyone, potentially yes, but I don't think we should lock people away because they could potentialy harm someone. That would certainly be authoritarian.


The Jews in Nazi Germany broke the law too, what's the big deal? :rolleyes:

Very poor justification.

Because it takes away this man's democratic choice on how to conduct his own life. Simply owning firearms is not hurting anyone, so he should be free to.

I think the veiw that democracy only means that you can cast a vote is a very narrow intepretation.

The gov't in this case has violated the right to life, and the right to property.

This is the slave-mentality. Nazi Germany enacted laws that descriminated against Jewish people, should those laws have been obeyed? If your answer is no, then your position is inconsistent with your earlier argument.

Do you think pot should be illegal as well?

Re: Britain's new political prisoner:
 

I see. So guns are regulated against not because the government thought gun crime might just go down, but so that they could put more of us in prison if they wanted to.

I honestly can't think of anything that could land me in trouble with the police if my house was searched, so I'd like to know what these "dozen things" are.Having "no roads" only means that there is less point owning a car because you can't use it to travel anywhere.

Look at it like this. You have a small plot of land where you can practice your driving, but you can't actually drive around town in your cars. You never make use of this plot of land. So, you don't need gasoline.According to my reasoning, if someone has an illegal stockpile of petrol in their home, it should always be taken away...it's just a little bit worse if they never make use of it.

Actually, I don't think the gun collector/car collector analogy is very good...but then I didn't create it. ;)I'm sure they would have been hidden, but what difference does that make? Just because something is not in plain sight does not mean it is secure, and apparently, the man's collection wasn't.

Re: Britain's new political prisoner:
 

So? That doesn't mean anyone, anywhere can break the law as they please.
Very poor counter.

Simply owning drugs is not harming anyone either, and it's illegal. That's the way the law works, you know. Some things have to be illegal even if they aren't necessarily doing any harm, as a precaution.

But that is what it means. It means the "rule of the majority", and you have a chance to influence that by voting, or by becoming a politician yourself.

The right to life? Uh...no? They didn't kill him, so they have not violated his right to life....
And the right to property is not without limits. As i said before, you don't have the right to own heroin either. Is that a violation of his right to property?

So do you think people should just break laws they don't like, in the world today?
Just because something was this way or that in Nazi Germany, doesn't mean it should be done today....

I don't see how it is....

Before i answer that, tell me what relevance that has with the subject in question.