View Single Post
  #39 (permalink)  
Old 07-22-2009, 06:57 PM
iangb's Avatar
iangb iangb is offline
Terminally Inquisitive
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,294
Quote:
Not a very shining example there, what with remote controlled spy drones, banning knives and the whole ASBO program that's currently in place.
Somehow, I think I'm better qualified to judge quality of life in the UK than you, seeing as I actually live here.

How do 'remote spy drones' affect me in my everyday life?

Quote:
Nobody should have to be required to prove that they're innocent and not likely to commit harm to others, it goes against the basis of our court system.
So you're against background checks for guns in the US? How about background checks for working in schools? How about driving tests?

Quote:
So you're telling us that a one time only, 15 minute follow along by a licensed safety instructor, will prove conclusively that somebody who owns a gun isn't likely to commit harm or misuse a gun?
You seem to be going for the 'blow statements out of proportion' tactic, but - it would cut down the likelihood, yes. If you ask someone to put the safety back on and they pull the trigger instead, that's a fairly good sign they shouldn't own a gun yet.

Quote:
And what is the definition of "let" here? If somebody examines your gun in your presence, but they then turn and shoot you and steal it, did you "let" them take it from you?
If you've deliberately allowed them to get to the gun, and had the opportunity to prevent them from doing so but deliberately failed, then I would say it's pretty much your own fault you got shot, yes?

Quote:
Exactly how many cases have been solved because of the long gun registry?
Not a clue. I would guess it's played a role in a great many cases, or the police wouldn't have recommended it like that. It's unlikely to have been the deciding factor, but it may well have saved lots of those resources which you were talking about.

Quote:
I never said the use of alcohol was a right
Not directly, no. The implication was there, however.
Regardless, you're using the fallacy of special pleading here. Precedent has been set for reversing an Amendment; the contents of the amendment which was reversed are irrelevant.
__________________
The truth may be out there, but lies are in your head.
Reply With Quote