Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Community
»
The Flameboard
»
Do you have a right to defend yourself?
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tahna Los: [QB] If the burglars were armed with Uzi's, this means that the burglars had an intent to kill. So blow their goddamned heads off. But they were armed with a crowbar, which means this was supposed to be a simple home invasion. You have a device which ejects buckshot at very painful speeds in a wide dispersion area. Sound a warning saying that you're armed and ready to blow their friggin heads off, and if they persist, blow their kneecaps. They can't do much with a crowbar once they've hit the deck. I see that this article is supposed to support the conspiracy theory that the US Government is out to confiscate all firearms. I still don't see this happening yet, and at the same time, I don't believe total confiscation of all firearms is the answer. [i]"It started with the Pistols Act of 1903. This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and established that handgun sales were to be made only to those who had a license. The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except shotguns. Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns."[/i] The UK has somewhat bent over backwards with this with total gun confiscation. The Firearms Act of 1920 perhaps the best and most adequate law to be passed in regards to gun-control, while respecting the rights of private gun-owners. As for the laws in 1953 and 1967, I'm not sure if it either outlawed a private citizen from owning a firearm, or from a private citizen carrying a firearm in public. If it was the latter, it made perfect sense (you didn't want to get shot by the man whose foot you accidently stepped on, and you didn't know he had a concealed weapon). If it was the former, then it didn't. After the Hungerford mass shooting, the weapon that should have been banned was the Kalashnikov Rifle involved in the shootings. I've heard that these rifles are only designed to kill and one of the more malicious rifles on the gun market. Likewise, after the Dunblane shooting, the semis too should have been banned. I may be wrong but I remember something about the shooter using an Uzi and a Tek-9, weapons that are only designed to kill and should be banned. A person in the United States shoots and kills a person who stumbled into the wrong house looking for a party. He gets off on all charges. A person in UK shoots to defend against actual criminals and gets life. Looking at the article, I would point a finger of the DA's in this case. Vengeful DA's who used the justice system to twist the entire case against a possibly innocent man who shouldn't have been convicted at the first place. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
© 1999-2024 Charles Capps
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3