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.
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.
Mala Prohibita and Mala in se are completely different things.
So? That doesn't mean anyone, anywhere can break the law as they please.
Very poor counter.
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.
Quote:
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.
Which is very authoritarian if you ask me. Note: I do not support drug bans.
Quote:
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.
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.
Quote:
The right to life? Uh...no? They didn't kill him, so they have not violated his right to life....
The right to life means to be able to defend yourself, the means of which the gov't has taken away.
Quote:
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?
Yes.
Quote:
So do you think people should just break laws they don't like, in the world today?
No, people should break laws that are injust, not laws they do not like.
Quote:
Just because something was this way or that in Nazi Germany, doesn't mean it should be done today....
That wasn't my point, I was just comparing your argument to past examples, there are countless others throughout history...
Quote:
Before i answer that, tell me what relevance that has with the subject in question.
Well If you are against drug bans then I suspect many of your arguments would mirror mine.
“It is a paradoxical truth, that… the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the tax rates.” -- John F. Kennedy
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.
Precisely! I entirely agree, and thus can say no more.
injust laws such as gun bans must be broken, in order to preserve liberty.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
people should break laws that are injust, not laws they do not like.
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.
Quote:
The right to life means to be able to defend yourself, the means of which the gov't has taken away.
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.
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.
Your idea of injust.
Your idea of preserving liberty.
It's only your opinion, which has no legal or moral justification.
Quote:
Which is very authoritarian if you ask me. Note: I do not support drug bans.
Yes, that is indeed what you think. However, not everyone agrees with that.
Quote:
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.
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.
Quote:
The right to life means to be able to defend yourself, the means of which the gov't has taken away.
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.
Quote:
Yes.
Matter of opinion, once again.
Quote:
No, people should break laws that are injust, not laws they do not like.
Which laws are injust is a matter of opinion, thus being the same as laws you don't like.
Quote:
Well If you are against drug bans then I suspect many of your arguments would mirror mine.
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.
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.
Now you're beginning to understand.
Same reason they banned mace. Even though there's no plausible explanation for it, they still did it.
Quote:
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.
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...)
"You can kill my body, but you can't kill my soul. My soul will live forever!"
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
