Yeah and I am sure all the criminals in the country are saying: Well, fuck!! If I can't rob a bank without my Samurai Sword, I will just not rob one at all.dayarath wrote:
As far as I can remember guns have been banned from having it as a personal possession long ago around here. Swords don't matter much, not alot of people have them and now that having them is a crime it will be harder for people with bad intent to obtain them, that's not a bad thing is it?Diesel_dyk wrote:
Here we go... "they are not like me, I'm not like them, so why would I care"dayarath wrote:
seriously you guys, why should I care, and I guess I speak for the majority of the Europeans here. We don't care.
I don't own a sword, why would I anyway? It has no use, costs alot of money and only looks cool on the wall. You'd look like a retard swinging it without any proper training / then again, why would you swing it around.
Not like it has an impact on our freedom.
First its assault weapons, then pistols, then long guns, then swords, next will be knives, forks and spoons.
The human race is slowly being dumbed down to the domesticated level of cattle or sheep. Next we will all be dermal micro chipped and catalogued.
Famous last words of a domesticate
"BAhhh Bahhh tell me what to do next Bahh bahh bahhh"
"OMG is that the F'n slaughterhouse?!? Where's my sword?????? Oh POS SPORK... NOOOOO!!!!!!!"
BAHH BAHHH BAHHH. If that sounds good to you then you are right "why care."
Yah why care, when its your turn I won't.
I actually don't mind the microchip idea, if you have done nothing bad you have nothing to be afraid of. Actually I support it. You won't be less free with one, if you haven't done anything which will result into feds tracking you, your life will just go on as usual, but with a chip in your body for when you get the crazy idea to make other people's lives miserable.
Well things get blown out of proportions alot.Braddock wrote:
I agree with the first paragraph of your post but not the second. Power corrupts, have you not seen Minority Report!!!?
A tracking chip won't make us end up like the film 1984. a DNA databank for every single person and a chip is good enough for me. It greatly reduces the crime rate in one's country. Power corrupts, that's true- but our system today doesn't permit corrupted people to take power. It's impossible for people like Hitler to ever gain a foothold in our society again. Once someone begins to show bad intent while he is in a powerful position, he'll be replaced. Simple as that.
You see, a chip doesn't harm as long as you obey the law. I have to agree, like depicted in 1984 is extreme. I don't think we can let it get that far, but I don't see a chip making a huge break into anyone's privacy.
inane little opines
But lowing, if swords and lethal weapons are freely available then every little shit with a bad attitude and bad intentions is free to get one. I'd prefer no swords or at least just swords in the hands of serious collectors (let's face it if you're not a serious collector then don't be fucking around with swords like you're some sort of fucking hard man).lowing wrote:
I do not want Ahmadinejad to have a sword any more than I want a criminal to have one... I am consistent on this issue.
How 'bout you.
I stand a better chance of getting killed by an Islamic terror attack than I am a Samuri Sword, yet you want to blanket punish everyone that might want to add to their collection, and yet you refuse to "PROFILE" to track a terrorists, for fear of hurting someones feelings
Btw I don't think Ahmadinehjad has ever been convicted of any violent crimes, why shouldn't he be allowed a sword going with your logic?
Remind me again of when I refused to track terrorists please, I thought I'd always advocated more spending and focus on intelligent domestic security and surveillance.
I don't care what you guys do about guns in America. You have to live with a far more dangerous reality than we do. Hitler did what now? You think that if you had a pistol you would have been able to do anything about Hitler? You would have been sent straight to the shower, he didn't mess around.lowing wrote:
1. Cam I find nothing inconvenient about your argument in fact other than saying we should not be allowed to own this or that, you haven't MADE an argument. You want the govt. to take away all of our guns, just like Hitler did? Just exactly how is not that relevant, considering what followed the removal of the armed citizen? If anything is inconvenient it is trying to deny that.
There will always be crime, there will always be drugs, there will always be terrorism. Measures taken to make it more difficult to engage in those activities can only be good. It's quite simple really.lowing wrote:
2. Just like drugs huh Cam, Drug addicts just can't seem to find a fix nowa days can they. Your conclusions are wrong and parallel examples pretty much shows it.
People will always try stuff with whatever method they can. Though a ban on swords like these will reduce the kill rate with them, even if it's just a minor reduction.lowing wrote:
Yeah and I am sure all the criminals in the country are saying: Well, fuck!! If I can't rob a bank without my Samurai Sword, I will just not rob one at all.dayarath wrote:
As far as I can remember guns have been banned from having it as a personal possession long ago around here. Swords don't matter much, not alot of people have them and now that having them is a crime it will be harder for people with bad intent to obtain them, that's not a bad thing is it?Diesel_dyk wrote:
Here we go... "they are not like me, I'm not like them, so why would I care"
First its assault weapons, then pistols, then long guns, then swords, next will be knives, forks and spoons.
The human race is slowly being dumbed down to the domesticated level of cattle or sheep. Next we will all be dermal micro chipped and catalogued.
Famous last words of a domesticate
"BAhhh Bahhh tell me what to do next Bahh bahh bahhh"
"OMG is that the F'n slaughterhouse?!? Where's my sword?????? Oh POS SPORK... NOOOOO!!!!!!!"
BAHH BAHHH BAHHH. If that sounds good to you then you are right "why care."
Yah why care, when its your turn I won't.
I actually don't mind the microchip idea, if you have done nothing bad you have nothing to be afraid of. Actually I support it. You won't be less free with one, if you haven't done anything which will result into feds tracking you, your life will just go on as usual, but with a chip in your body for when you get the crazy idea to make other people's lives miserable.
inane little opines
I guess we just have different opinions on this issue. What if you uncovered corruption in an incumbent Government and elements within that corrupt Government decided to use your chip information to assassinate your character? I just think too much power should never be concentrated into the hands of the few.dayarath wrote:
Well things get blown out of proportions alot.Braddock wrote:
I agree with the first paragraph of your post but not the second. Power corrupts, have you not seen Minority Report!!!?
A tracking chip won't make us end up like the film 1984. a DNA databank for every single person and a chip is good enough for me. It greatly reduces the crime rate in one's country. Power corrupts, that's true- but our system today doesn't permit corrupted people to take power. It's impossible for people like Hitler to ever gain a foothold in our society again. Once someone begins to show bad intent while he is in a powerful position, he'll be replaced. Simple as that.
You see, a chip doesn't harm as long as you obey the law. I have to agree, like depicted in 1984 is extreme. I don't think we can let it get that far, but I don't see a chip making a huge break into anyone's privacy.
That's a bit unrealistic now lowing, isn't it? But you are catching on to the way in which less weapons does increase the difficulty for people seeking to perpetrate violent crimes.lowing wrote:
Yeah and I am sure all the criminals in the country are saying: Well, fuck!! If I can't rob a bank without my Samurai Sword, I will just not rob one at all.
I'd say a chip only used for tracking. Not one stored with all your personal information, a databank which holds someone's identity is extreme. Mass corruption is not something you'll see happen these days btw, politicians never agree with one another anyway xDBraddock wrote:
I guess we just have different opinions on this issue. What if you uncovered corruption in an incumbent Government and elements within that corrupt Government decided to use your chip information to assassinate your character? I just think too much power should never be concentrated into the hands of the few.dayarath wrote:
Well things get blown out of proportions alot.Braddock wrote:
I agree with the first paragraph of your post but not the second. Power corrupts, have you not seen Minority Report!!!?
A tracking chip won't make us end up like the film 1984. a DNA databank for every single person and a chip is good enough for me. It greatly reduces the crime rate in one's country. Power corrupts, that's true- but our system today doesn't permit corrupted people to take power. It's impossible for people like Hitler to ever gain a foothold in our society again. Once someone begins to show bad intent while he is in a powerful position, he'll be replaced. Simple as that.
You see, a chip doesn't harm as long as you obey the law. I have to agree, like depicted in 1984 is extreme. I don't think we can let it get that far, but I don't see a chip making a huge break into anyone's privacy.
inane little opines
FixedBraddock wrote:
Also I find it funny that someAmericans on here can try to apply one mentality to Iran and their desire to have nuclear energy i.e. presuming they are going to use it for violent means, and an opposite mentality to members of the public wanting to acquire weapons...only difference is swords and guns can't be used to take care of cities power needs.
I still wouldn't be fond of the idea to be honest. Didn't Cunnilingus Rice's department abuse it's power to check up on Hilary and Obama's files recently?dayarath wrote:
I'd say a chip only used for tracking. Not one stored with all your personal information, a databank which holds someone's identity is extreme. Mass corruption is not something you'll see happen these days btw, politicians never agree with one another anyway xDBraddock wrote:
I guess we just have different opinions on this issue. What if you uncovered corruption in an incumbent Government and elements within that corrupt Government decided to use your chip information to assassinate your character? I just think too much power should never be concentrated into the hands of the few.dayarath wrote:
Well things get blown out of proportions alot.
A tracking chip won't make us end up like the film 1984. a DNA databank for every single person and a chip is good enough for me. It greatly reduces the crime rate in one's country. Power corrupts, that's true- but our system today doesn't permit corrupted people to take power. It's impossible for people like Hitler to ever gain a foothold in our society again. Once someone begins to show bad intent while he is in a powerful position, he'll be replaced. Simple as that.
You see, a chip doesn't harm as long as you obey the law. I have to agree, like depicted in 1984 is extreme. I don't think we can let it get that far, but I don't see a chip making a huge break into anyone's privacy.
ThanksDesertFox- wrote:
FixedBraddock wrote:
Also I find it funny that someAmericans on here can try to apply one mentality to Iran and their desire to have nuclear energy i.e. presuming they are going to use it for violent means, and an opposite mentality to members of the public wanting to acquire weapons...only difference is swords and guns can't be used to take care of cities power needs.
Well they had been freely available and still, only a handful of people committed a crime with them.Braddock wrote:
But lowing, if swords and lethal weapons are freely available then every little shit with a bad attitude and bad intentions is free to get one. I'd prefer no swords or at least just swords in the hands of serious collectors (let's face it if you're not a serious collector then don't be fucking around with swords like you're some sort of fucking hard man).lowing wrote:
I do not want Ahmadinejad to have a sword any more than I want a criminal to have one... I am consistent on this issue.
How 'bout you.
I stand a better chance of getting killed by an Islamic terror attack than I am a Samuri Sword, yet you want to blanket punish everyone that might want to add to their collection, and yet you refuse to "PROFILE" to track a terrorists, for fear of hurting someones feelings
Btw I don't think Ahmadinehjad has ever been convicted of any violent crimes, why shouldn't he be allowed a sword going with your logic?
Remind me again of when I refused to track terrorists please, I thought I'd always advocated more spending and focus on intelligent domestic security and surveillance.
He would be a criminal in the states.
I did not say you refused to track terrorists I said you refuse to PROFILE in a effort to track terrorists. Cuz, profilin' is wroooonnnggggg.
1. LOL..The French resistance is a pretty good example as to what an armed citizen can do Cam. To the shower they might had gone, but they went fighting. Too bad they were far and few between the nrmal French mentality and apparently yours.CameronPoe wrote:
I don't care what you guys do about guns in America. You have to live with a far more dangerous reality than we do. Hitler did what now? You think that if you had a pistol you would have been able to do anything about Hitler? You would have been sent straight to the shower, he didn't mess around.lowing wrote:
1. Cam I find nothing inconvenient about your argument in fact other than saying we should not be allowed to own this or that, you haven't MADE an argument. You want the govt. to take away all of our guns, just like Hitler did? Just exactly how is not that relevant, considering what followed the removal of the armed citizen? If anything is inconvenient it is trying to deny that.There will always be crime, there will always be drugs, there will always be terrorism. Measures taken to make it more difficult to engage in those activities can only be good. It's quite simple really.lowing wrote:
2. Just like drugs huh Cam, Drug addicts just can't seem to find a fix nowa days can they. Your conclusions are wrong and parallel examples pretty much shows it.
2. there is no evidence that shows it is difficult for drug users to get their drugs Cam. Again, your reasoning is wrong.
and what are you prepared to do when the criminals turn to scissors?dayarath wrote:
People will always try stuff with whatever method they can. Though a ban on swords like these will reduce the kill rate with them, even if it's just a minor reduction.lowing wrote:
Yeah and I am sure all the criminals in the country are saying: Well, fuck!! If I can't rob a bank without my Samurai Sword, I will just not rob one at all.dayarath wrote:
As far as I can remember guns have been banned from having it as a personal possession long ago around here. Swords don't matter much, not alot of people have them and now that having them is a crime it will be harder for people with bad intent to obtain them, that's not a bad thing is it?
I actually don't mind the microchip idea, if you have done nothing bad you have nothing to be afraid of. Actually I support it. You won't be less free with one, if you haven't done anything which will result into feds tracking you, your life will just go on as usual, but with a chip in your body for when you get the crazy idea to make other people's lives miserable.
There have been loads of sword attacks in Scotland over the years and a noticeable increase in Ireland in recent years. Some guy lost his hand in an attack in Finglas a couple of weeks ago. I'm happy to see them banned, even the owners of martial arts stores have come out and asked for stricter regulations to be put in place.lowing wrote:
Well they had been freely available and still, only a handful of people committed a crime with them.Braddock wrote:
But lowing, if swords and lethal weapons are freely available then every little shit with a bad attitude and bad intentions is free to get one. I'd prefer no swords or at least just swords in the hands of serious collectors (let's face it if you're not a serious collector then don't be fucking around with swords like you're some sort of fucking hard man).lowing wrote:
I do not want Ahmadinejad to have a sword any more than I want a criminal to have one... I am consistent on this issue.
How 'bout you.
I stand a better chance of getting killed by an Islamic terror attack than I am a Samuri Sword, yet you want to blanket punish everyone that might want to add to their collection, and yet you refuse to "PROFILE" to track a terrorists, for fear of hurting someones feelings
Btw I don't think Ahmadinehjad has ever been convicted of any violent crimes, why shouldn't he be allowed a sword going with your logic?
Remind me again of when I refused to track terrorists please, I thought I'd always advocated more spending and focus on intelligent domestic security and surveillance.
He would be a criminal in the states.
I did not say you refused to track terrorists I said you refuse to PROFILE in a effort to track terrorists. Cuz, profilin' is wroooonnnggggg.
Why would he be a criminal in the States? Why didn't you arrest him when he came over for that lecture?
I don't mind following and profiling actual terror suspects where good intel suggests it would be useful. I do oppose blanket profiling and a presumption that everyone is guilty until proven innocent because it's a step too close towards a KGB/Stasi society...no thanks.
Unrealistic is right.......You just got it.Braddock wrote:
That's a bit unrealistic now lowing, isn't it? But you are catching on to the way in which less weapons does increase the difficulty for people seeking to perpetrate violent crimes.lowing wrote:
Yeah and I am sure all the criminals in the country are saying: Well, fuck!! If I can't rob a bank without my Samurai Sword, I will just not rob one at all.
Laugh at them, take the scissors off them and beat the shit out of them.lowing wrote:
and what are you prepared to do when the criminals turn to scissors?dayarath wrote:
People will always try stuff with whatever method they can. Though a ban on swords like these will reduce the kill rate with them, even if it's just a minor reduction.lowing wrote:
Yeah and I am sure all the criminals in the country are saying: Well, fuck!! If I can't rob a bank without my Samurai Sword, I will just not rob one at all.
If you're asking me if I'd prefer a samurai sword or scissors coming at me...well, I think you can guess my answer.
There were resistance groups in every country, and they weren't as overly effective as you might think (and not everyone is brave enough to go in that, most hid themselves in fear rather than joining the resistance, your chance of survival there was very low). The resistance also made some huge failures of it's own, most of which could be blamed on the lack of training. They were like small insurgencies. Hitler had everything locked down. You think you could do anything against Hitler? I will bet on it that if Hitler didn't declare war to the soviet union he may have won over the allies.lowing wrote:
1. LOL..The French resistance is a pretty good example as to what an armed citizen can do Cam. To the shower they might had gone, but they went fighting. Too bad they were far and few between the nrmal French mentality and apparently yours.
inane little opines
1. ya mean swords, or Samurai sword attacks in Scotland?Braddock wrote:
There have been loads of sword attacks in Scotland over the years and a noticeable increase in Ireland in recent years. Some guy lost his hand in an attack in Finglas a couple of weeks ago. I'm happy to see them banned, even the owners of martial arts stores have come out and asked for stricter regulations to be put in place.lowing wrote:
Well they had been freely available and still, only a handful of people committed a crime with them.Braddock wrote:
But lowing, if swords and lethal weapons are freely available then every little shit with a bad attitude and bad intentions is free to get one. I'd prefer no swords or at least just swords in the hands of serious collectors (let's face it if you're not a serious collector then don't be fucking around with swords like you're some sort of fucking hard man).
Btw I don't think Ahmadinehjad has ever been convicted of any violent crimes, why shouldn't he be allowed a sword going with your logic?
Remind me again of when I refused to track terrorists please, I thought I'd always advocated more spending and focus on intelligent domestic security and surveillance.
He would be a criminal in the states.
I did not say you refused to track terrorists I said you refuse to PROFILE in a effort to track terrorists. Cuz, profilin' is wroooonnnggggg.
Why would he be a criminal in the States? Why didn't you arrest him when he came over for that lecture?
I don't mind following and profiling actual terror suspects where good intel suggests it would be useful. I do oppose blanket profiling and a presumption that everyone is guilty until proven innocent because it's a step too close towards a KGB/Stasi society...no thanks.
2. His treatment of citizens in his country? maybe??
3. Newsflash, sometimes ya gotta follow leads and build evidence to suspect a terror suspect. Profiling is atool used to do just that.
a purposeful deflection of the point........Braddock. Painfully obviousBraddock wrote:
Laugh at them, take the scissors off them and beat the shit out of them.lowing wrote:
and what are you prepared to do when the criminals turn to scissors?dayarath wrote:
People will always try stuff with whatever method they can. Though a ban on swords like these will reduce the kill rate with them, even if it's just a minor reduction.
If you're asking me if I'd prefer a samurai sword or scissors coming at me...well, I think you can guess my answer.
This may come as some surprise to you but Europe has moved on considerably since WWII. It is currently inconceivable that a brutal dictatorship would come to power anywhere in the EU - we are far too politically stable, we are far too well off economically, there is far too small a gap between rich and poor and our constitutions are far to strong to allow that to happen. We don't need weapons - we need strong police forces and strong armies. The US is a far more dangerous place than Europe, partly due to the free availability of weapons. Perhaps USA can't function unless it's highly militarised the way it is right now.lowing wrote:
1. LOL. The French resistance is a pretty good example as to what an armed citizen can do Cam. To the shower they might had gone, but they went fighting. Too bad they were far and few between the nrmal French mentality and apparently yours.
PS How many times have people in the US utilised their weapons in the militia sense, as outline in the constitution, since they got independence from Britain? None? Hmmmm.
Drugs bust occurs - price of drugs go up - drugs more difficult to get. It's quite simple really. Prohibition of cigarette smoking in the workplace has significantly reduced the number of people who smoke here. Restrictions tend to reduce things lowing....lowing wrote:
2. there is no evidence that shows it is difficult for drug users to get their drugs Cam. Again, your reasoning is wrong.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-04-13 12:42:42)
All manner of knives and swords.lowing wrote:
1. ya mean swords, or Samurai sword attacks in Scotland?
You have laws in your country that extend to how people conduct themselves in other countries? What has Ahmadinejad actually done himself exactly and again why wasn't he arrested when he set foot on US soil for his speech recently?lowing wrote:
2. His treatment of citizens in his country? maybe??
I can appreciate that but it doesn't go against what I said in my last post. I don't support security services having the right to invade the rights and privacies of anyone they like whenever they feel like it...but if you've been a bad boy and the powers that be can put forward a good case to get warrants and whatnot to follow you then dry your eyes and deal with it.lowing wrote:
3. Newsflash, sometimes ya gotta follow leads and build evidence to suspect a terror suspect. Profiling is atool used to do just that.
1. Soooooo is there a reason why Celtic swords and knives are not banned? After all we need to do all we can to be as safe as possible. We should ban all swords and knives if only to save 1 life.Braddock wrote:
All manner of knives and swords.lowing wrote:
1. ya mean swords, or Samurai sword attacks in Scotland?You have laws in your country that extend to how people conduct themselves in other countries? What has Ahmadinejad actually done himself exactly and again why wasn't he arrested when he set foot on US soil for his speech recently?lowing wrote:
2. His treatment of citizens in his country? maybe??I can appreciate that but it doesn't go against what I said in my last post. I don't support security services having the right to invade the rights and privacies of anyone they like whenever they feel like it...but if you've been a bad boy and the powers that be can put forward a good case to get warrants and whatnot to follow you then dry your eyes and deal with it.lowing wrote:
3. Newsflash, sometimes ya gotta follow leads and build evidence to suspect a terror suspect. Profiling is atool used to do just that.
2. I refer to his treatment in his own country. If he did those things here he would be arrested.
3. They don't do it "when they feel like it" they do it if they have a hunch, or a theory. They have no reason to waste time listening in on your phone sex calls with your ole' lady.
1. Exemptions to the ban on sword sales include swords that are to be used for Highland dancing, museum displays, historical re-enactments, fencing and martial arts (that would be the exception allowed for collectors). I don't think a little Glasgow 'ned' is going to be allowed to stroll in and buy a claymore after this new law comes into effect to be honest.lowing wrote:
1. Soooooo is there a reason why Celtic swords and knives are not banned? After all we need to do all we can to be as safe as possible. We should ban all swords and knives if only to save 1 life.Braddock wrote:
All manner of knives and swords.lowing wrote:
1. ya mean swords, or Samurai sword attacks in Scotland?You have laws in your country that extend to how people conduct themselves in other countries? What has Ahmadinejad actually done himself exactly and again why wasn't he arrested when he set foot on US soil for his speech recently?lowing wrote:
2. His treatment of citizens in his country? maybe??I can appreciate that but it doesn't go against what I said in my last post. I don't support security services having the right to invade the rights and privacies of anyone they like whenever they feel like it...but if you've been a bad boy and the powers that be can put forward a good case to get warrants and whatnot to follow you then dry your eyes and deal with it.lowing wrote:
3. Newsflash, sometimes ya gotta follow leads and build evidence to suspect a terror suspect. Profiling is atool used to do just that.
2. I refer to his treatment in his own country. If he did those things here he would be arrested.
3. They don't do it "when they feel like it" they do it if they have a hunch, or a theory. They have no reason to waste time listening in on your phone sex calls with your ole' lady.
2. What specifically has he done himself in his own country to his own people?
3. I don't mind that and if it turns out the dude is innocent they stop or scale back operations, I don't think we actually disagree on this point lowing.
Ninjas in Britain.
Nice.
Nice.