Re: Britain's new political prisoner:
 

like banning guns? the nazis did that too.

Re: Britain's new political prisoner:
 

Completely aside from the fact that the Nazi dictatorship was an oppressive regime that can in no way be compared to modern Britain....

I never said that guns should be completely banned. But this guy had over 100 weapons stored in his house, and had sold them illegally as well.
A far cry from having a single rifle or something in a safety case.

Re: Britain's new political prisoner:
 

Mala Prohibita and Mala in se are completely different things.

Re: Britain's new political prisoner:
 

No, laws against murder for instance should not be broken, but injust laws such as gun bans must be broken, in order to preserve liberty.



Which is very authoritarian if you ask me. Note: I do not support drug bans.



Only if you look under the dictionary will you find such a definition, which IMO is quite inadequate.

It's actually "rule by the people," which if you think about it, suits my description of democracy.



The right to life means to be able to defend yourself, the means of which the gov't has taken away.

Yes.



No, people should break laws that are injust, not laws they do not like.


That wasn't my point, I was just comparing your argument to past examples, there are countless others throughout history...



Well If you are against drug bans then I suspect many of your arguments would mirror mine.

Re: Britain's new political prisoner:
 

Precisely! I entirely agree, and thus can say no more.

Re: Britain's new political prisoner:
 

Dogma. Yours are not the definitions of liberty, democracy and justice that the rest of us live by.

Also, there is no gun "ban", merely heavy regulations which were not followed.Well according to your reasoning, if we want to defend ourselves all we need are "better locks, an alarm, or even firearms", so which is it? Either firearms are necessary for self-defence, or they aren't.

Re: Britain's new political prisoner:
 

Your idea of injust.
Your idea of preserving liberty.
It's only your opinion, which has no legal or moral justification.

Yes, that is indeed what you think. However, not everyone agrees with that.

But no matter how a political system works, there is no way everyone's opinions can be represented adequatly. Which is why rule of the majority more accurately corresponds with reality.

No, it does not. Right to life means you have the right not to be killed. It does not include the right to defend yourself, and certainly not the inalienable right to own guns.

Matter of opinion, once again.

Which laws are injust is a matter of opinion, thus being the same as laws you don't like.

I don't think all drugs should be legal without any kind of regulations.
A lot of drugs are dangerous, and people who don't know any better (young people in particular) need to be protected.
However, i do think that punishing people for posession of some drugs is quite stupid.

Re: Britain's new political prisoner:
 

To keep a gun working correctly and to keep some value to it, you have to shoot it from times to times. ;)

Re: Britain's new political prisoner:
 

Unless it's really old.

But why would someone buy a gun and not shoot it? Unless it was a really nice antique. I prefer all of my collector pieces to be operable.

Re: Britain's new political prisoner:
 

Now you're beginning to understand.

Same reason they banned mace. Even though there's no plausible explanation for it, they still did it.

God only knows. There's literally millions of laws on what you can and cannot do/have.

Hell, the crime doesn't even need to be real. A few years ago American Federal police stormed an old couple's home, "found" some drugs, and "accidentally" shot the husband - and the guy was like 70 years old. (It was a newspaper article. I'm trying to find an internet source for you now...)