Britain's new political prisoner:

[MrFancypants]

Originally Posted by Nemmerle

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.

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.

[Joe Bonham]

Originally Posted by TheDarkInvader

Of course he should be arrested. Defiance of the law cannot be tolerated. No point having laws if you aren't willing to enforce them.

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.

If he's not going to drive the vehicles, then he doesn't need gasoline. Especially if there are no roads to drive them on.

What the hell? Are there no roads in Britain?

This gun collector wasn't using his guns for anything,

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

nor could he.

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

Just selling them to whoever

To fellow gun collectors he knew personally.

and leaving them lying around his house.

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

[Emperor Benedictine]

Originally Posted by Machiavelli's Apprentice

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.

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.

What the hell? Are there no roads in Britain?

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".

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

Originally Posted by article

Police raided Hughes' house in June and found an arsenal of illegal guns, some of which were hidden in a false water tank in the attic.

"He left the firearms around the house because he didn't have enough secure cabinets in which to store them."

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.

[Joe Bonham]

Originally Posted by TheDarkInvader

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.

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.

It's still an analogy.

One that you have killed.

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".

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.

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.

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)

[Reno]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Rommel

I so hope that was a sarchastic remark, USA is one of the least democratic countries....

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.

[Joe Bonham]

The sarcasim was directed towards a great deal of europeans that think the US is backwards.

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!"

[Akula971]

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.

[WarHawk109]

Originally Posted by Locomotor

Oh, but wouldn't you say that banning guns is the government taking away your rights? So, you feel it's moral in this case to break the law (as do I in my case (and this one, maybe)). But wait! We still can't have you running around like a vigilante, breaking the law simply because you feel it's wrong. If you want the law changed, you must use the proper channels. The courts, WarHawk109, the courts!

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.

Originally Posted by TheDarkInvader

So, if the man, or indeed someone else, for whatever reason decided to use his weapons against his neighbours, what is their means of self-defence?

Being as how firearms are, of course, not possessed by the overwhelming majority of people in the UK.

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.

Originally Posted by Karst

What's the big deal? He broke the law, so he's in trouble.

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

Very poor justification.

How is that incompatible with democracy?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Do you think pot should be illegal as well?

[Emperor Benedictine]

Originally Posted by Machiavelli's Apprentice

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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)

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.

[Karst]

Originally Posted by WarHawk109

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

Very poor justification.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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?

This is the slave-mentality. Nazi Germany enacted laws that descriminated against Jewish people, should those laws have been obeyed?

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....

If your answer is no, then your position is inconsistent with your earlier argument.

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

Do you think pot should be illegal as well?

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