Quote:
Originally Posted by timej31
(Post 323438)
Not being nit picky but it's spelled favor. Hello???
|
*facepalm*
no it's not. similarly armour is what knights wear, football is played with a round ball, and you're meant to drive on the left.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II
(Post 323527)
Yep, my perspective in this thread is the one of the guy that was raised in a country where, albeit not as much as in the States, there's the possibility of owning firearms (carrying them around on your person is not that simple though), moving to a country where the laws and the stupidity of politicians did a lot of damage to the culture and rights of citizen.
|
dude, go back there if you want to own a shedload of firearms. if i want to smoke pot all day i'll move to holland. if i wanted to be teetotal i'd move to the UAE.
also, ftr, the politicians acted after people with licensed firearms went mental and killed dozens of people. this is when you could own firearms if you wanted, so you can't even say that is why people died - because no one else was armed to intervene.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II
(Post 323634)
at least Cameron's gang now have changed the law for self defence in your household, cos if you killed or injured an intruder before you would still be charged with assault and manslaughter, go figure!!
|
hmm.
not sure you're quite aware of the changes tbh.
it used to be that you could defend yourself with
whatever came to hand, and as long as they a. didn't have their back to you fleeing, and b. you hadn't ejected them from your property and then gone back inside for the first thing that came to hand. if you either killed or injured them, and neither a. nor b. was the case, it was classed as self defence.
now you can have a baseball bat or whatever by your bed with the express purpose of defending yourself. a. and b. still apply.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II
(Post 323671)
You know,at first I was surprised that people with such mentality could be in this forum,but then again to them the Battle Of Britain is either a game or something that was fought with good intentions,not firearms.. It's a contradiction in terms that is beyond me.
|
it is something that happened 70 years ago which we recreate with pixels. not sure quite what your point is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II
(Post 323720)
you must have been asleep at school when they explained the concept of democracy: you said "I don't want guns completely legalised in my country just because someone wants to collect them. Or gets off on shooting stuff.." I don't want the Xfactor or Jordan on TV, but alas, I have to take it, because there's a part of this democratic country that likes that s**t. You don't even know what it is that you don't want.
whereas inviting me to shut up is very democratic uh? How old are you, Winny? 12?
Unfortunately for you guns are common, as you said you've been at gunpoint twice (very bad luck btw, even in Manchester), and again, I have nothing against your choice of not having guns, chapeau to you and your sense of security based on this farse of society. I, on the other hand, am a collector, and I believe I have the same rights that you have to exercise my hobbies. You don't agree? Tough.
Uh and I tell you what, you can come with me to the shooting range at any time and try it for yourself, you'd be amazed on what you'd see.
|
seems you're off on it as well. the british public called for handguns and assault weapons to be banned. democracy in action, pretty much.
you have a right to exercise your hobbies where they do not contravene the law, nor spirit of the law of the land.
and then to cap it all you start calling people 12 year olds, whilst simultaneously missing the difference between playing make believe pew pew computer games... and actually shooting someone dead.
jesus.
given your display here, i'm damn glad they restrict your access to firearms.
