|
|
|
San Franscisco considers firearm ban [message #130500] |
Mon, 03 January 2005 12:43 ![Go to previous message Go to previous message](/theme/Renegade_Forums/images/up.png) ![Go to next message Go to next message](/theme/Renegade_Forums/images/down.png) |
![](http://renegadeforums.com/images/avatars/cybcicon 0000.jpeg) |
Toolstyle
Messages: 215 Registered: May 2004 Location: Manchester
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
That seems like the most stupid idea ever. Like the article said "the criminals flock to a city that ensures they won't be shot at by the people they're robbing" Plus banning guns doesn't seem to have helped in Washington.
Aircraftkiller | That's irrelevant to this thread.
Common fallacies of logic and rhetoric:
Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument.
|
|
|
|
|
San Franscisco considers firearm ban [message #130538] |
Mon, 03 January 2005 16:05 ![Go to previous message Go to previous message](/theme/Renegade_Forums/images/up.png) ![Go to next message Go to next message](/theme/Renegade_Forums/images/down.png) |
![](http://renegadeforums.com/images/custom_avatars/1779.jpg) |
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756 Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
Let me guess....Break up the 11th circuit?
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
San Franscisco considers firearm ban [message #130797] |
Tue, 04 January 2005 16:15 ![Go to previous message Go to previous message](/theme/Renegade_Forums/images/up.png) ![Go to next message Go to next message](/theme/Renegade_Forums/images/down.png) |
Spoony_old
Messages: 1105 Registered: December 2004
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
Sigh....
In the UK, we aren't allowed to attack burglars in any way, otherwise we would get a longer sentence than he would. I am not exaggerating.
|
|
|
|
|
|
San Franscisco considers firearm ban [message #130930] |
Wed, 05 January 2005 10:43 ![Go to previous message Go to previous message](/theme/Renegade_Forums/images/up.png) ![Go to next message Go to next message](/theme/Renegade_Forums/images/down.png) |
![](http://renegadeforums.com/images/avatars/cybcicon 0000.jpeg) |
Toolstyle
Messages: 215 Registered: May 2004 Location: Manchester
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
Well this all came into public view when a farmer shot dead burglar as he ran away. While yes it is unreasonable that the victim should get imprisoned for hitting somebody for robbing his/her house, shooting them as they run away is overboard. Reforms are being introduced that will allow us to use "reasonable force" to stop burglars which is all down to interpretation, I see that as anything short of killing or mortally wounding as reasonable and hopfully so would the police and courts.
@rm5248
Ok fair enough I didn't pay that much attention before I posted that bit =P
Aircraftkiller | That's irrelevant to this thread.
Common fallacies of logic and rhetoric:
Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument.
|
|
|
|
|
San Franscisco considers firearm ban [message #130962] |
Wed, 05 January 2005 14:30 ![Go to previous message Go to previous message](/theme/Renegade_Forums/images/up.png) ![Go to next message Go to next message](/theme/Renegade_Forums/images/down.png) |
![](http://renegadeforums.com/images/avatars/cybcicon 0000.jpeg) |
Toolstyle
Messages: 215 Registered: May 2004 Location: Manchester
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
Well you need licences don't you? They'll just mooch around and take all the ones off licence holders and the criminals who's stolen a gun will be able to keep theirs...makes sense yeah?
Aircraftkiller | That's irrelevant to this thread.
Common fallacies of logic and rhetoric:
Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
San Franscisco considers firearm ban [message #132358] |
Sat, 15 January 2005 21:52 ![Go to previous message Go to previous message](/theme/Renegade_Forums/images/up.png) ![Go to next message Go to previous message](/theme/Renegade_Forums/images/down.png) |
![](http://renegadeforums.com/images/custom_avatars/1513.jpg) |
IRON FART
Messages: 1989 Registered: September 2003 Location: LOS ANGELES
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
I'm more worried about the automatic (semi?) ban that expired. I'd rather be confronted with a hand gun than an Uzi.
But I'd support this thing SF is doing. A ban on handguns in a major city makes perfect sense.
I think they should ban guns altogether.
The constitution allowed guns when it was first written, but that was a good 200 years ago. AFAIK, there are no invaders, no British Soldiers, indians or any wild cattle atacking me. I don't think there is a need for that sort of "defense" anymore. Guns get into the hands of criminals too often.
Guns should only be in the hands of Policemen, and Military personnelle.
![http://www.baclan.org/albums/album05/dasmodell.jpg](http://www.baclan.org/albums/album05/dasmodell.jpg)
Quote: |
Quote from IRC
<[Digital]> get man_fucking_a_car.mpg
<[Digital]> ah fuck wrong window
|
[Updated on: Mon, 17 January 2005 17:34] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|