Political Crossfire Forums

britboy · Joined: 02 Jun 2006 Posts: 3571 Location: London

micfranklin wrote: britboy wrote: Yep -- my ornament should be banned alright as it (amongst other more common items) fall clearly into that category

Uh, hold on a minute...I never said your ornament or any common item should be banned. I said that "most ornaments people own don't contain lethal gases."

Unless the ornament you're thinking of is mustard gas or some other lethal agent :?

So you are saying that I should be able to carry round a glass ornament full of mustard gas? Or I shouldn't? Please clarify.

micfranklin · Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 4:31 pm Post subject:

britboy wrote: micfranklin wrote: britboy wrote: Yep -- my ornament should be banned alright as it (amongst other more common items) fall clearly into that category

Uh, hold on a minute...I never said your ornament or any common item should be banned. I said that "most ornaments people own don't contain lethal gases."

Unless the ornament you're thinking of is mustard gas or some other lethal agent :?

So you are saying that I should be able to carry round a glass ornament full of mustard gas? Or I shouldn't? Please clarify.

No you shouldn't be able to. Even if its not the container that's lethal, it's what's in the container that's deadly to people.

britboy · Joined: 02 Jun 2006 Posts: 3571 Location: London

micfranklin wrote: britboy wrote: micfranklin wrote: britboy wrote: Yep -- my ornament should be banned alright as it (amongst other more common items) fall clearly into that category

Uh, hold on a minute...I never said your ornament or any common item should be banned. I said that "most ornaments people own don't contain lethal gases."

Unless the ornament you're thinking of is mustard gas or some other lethal agent :?

So you are saying that I should be able to carry round a glass ornament full of mustard gas? Or I shouldn't? Please clarify.

No you shouldn't be able to. Even if its not the container that's lethal, it's what's in the container that's deadly to people.

Well it's brilliant that we agree :tu: as I said in that last post (end of page 1) ...

Quote:
virtually every thing people carry round do not have the capability of killing many people in fact its only things like my 'ornament' and a few other items that do. So, well, I understand .. you do think it's worth restricting any so called 'human rights to own' if I want to abuse those rights in carrying round something (my ornament in this case) that could, if I chose, be absolutely bloody lethal. Something that could kill many, many people

I think we agree on virtually everything now. Nice to find someone I agree with about restricting these kinds of things. I'll give you some time to digest what we've talked about then I'll move forward with some more 'only sensible' restrictions to inanimate objects that could kill many, many people. (Write some 'Guns are great I'm never banning them' response if you want -- I understand .. 1 step at a time ...

mathurin · Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 4:51 pm Post subject:

yeah, we know about the graduated approach, and honestly it might work, i really hope we are intelligent enough to see past it

in essence, mass murder is not legal, if there is no legitimate reason to carry or own an item of mass murder or assault, then there is no reason to make it legal

deadly poisons and such that are released into the atmosphere have no legitimate purpose for you. if you were a scientist studying them then perhaps, but carrying it for the hell of it is not a reason
this does not equate to guns, guns have legitimate self-defense and military use (poison gases do not, they are not legal weapons of war)

your comparison is invalid

micfranklin · Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 8:02 pm Post subject:

britboy wrote: micfranklin wrote: britboy wrote: micfranklin wrote: britboy wrote: Yep -- my ornament should be banned alright as it (amongst other more common items) fall clearly into that category

Uh, hold on a minute...I never said your ornament or any common item should be banned. I said that "most ornaments people own don't contain lethal gases."

Unless the ornament you're thinking of is mustard gas or some other lethal agent :?

So you are saying that I should be able to carry round a glass ornament full of mustard gas? Or I shouldn't? Please clarify.

No you shouldn't be able to. Even if its not the container that's lethal, it's what's in the container that's deadly to people.

Well it's brilliant that we agree :tu: as I said in that last post (end of page 1) ...

Quote:
virtually every thing people carry round do not have the capability of killing many people in fact its only things like my 'ornament' and a few other items that do. So, well, I understand .. you do think it's worth restricting any so called 'human rights to own' if I want to abuse those rights in carrying round something (my ornament in this case) that could, if I chose, be absolutely bloody lethal. Something that could kill many, many people

I think we agree on virtually everything now. Nice to find someone I agree with about restricting these kinds of things. I'll give you some time to digest what we've talked about then I'll move forward with some more 'only sensible' restrictions to inanimate objects that could kill many, many people. (Write some 'Guns are great I'm never banning them' response if you want -- I understand .. 1 step at a time ...

:x Okay, I obviously don't think you get it. We should not restrict any of these things at all. No ban on shoelaces or cups or plastic or glass containers or any of that, as that would be just plain stupid. Carrying around a glass or plastic container is fine. Mustard gas or any toxic biological agent is not okay, as I have stated above multiple times.

rjld · Joined: 23 Oct 2006 Posts: 1 Location: Idaho

Your logic is way off. Dangerous gases compare in no way to guns.

Ok ban guns then when a criminal comes into your house and happens to have a gun because he has no respect for the law in the first place what do you do. Unless you are a blackbelt or know some other fighting technique you are either going to get robbed or killed. Whereas if I have a gun I can walk out see the guy in my house and protect myself and my family. I will never give up my right to bear arms.

britboy · Joined: 02 Jun 2006 Posts: 3571 Location: London

micfranklin wrote: britboy wrote: micfranklin wrote: britboy wrote: micfranklin wrote: britboy wrote: Yep -- my ornament should be banned alright as it (amongst other more common items) fall clearly into that category

Uh, hold on a minute...I never said your ornament or any common item should be banned. I said that "most ornaments people own don't contain lethal gases."

Unless the ornament you're thinking of is mustard gas or some other lethal agent :?

So you are saying that I should be able to carry round a glass ornament full of mustard gas? Or I shouldn't? Please clarify.

No you shouldn't be able to. Even if its not the container that's lethal, it's what's in the container that's deadly to people.

Well it's brilliant that we agree :tu: as I said in that last post (end of page 1) ...

Quote:
virtually every thing people carry round do not have the capability of killing many people in fact its only things like my 'ornament' and a few other items that do. So, well, I understand .. you do think it's worth restricting any so called 'human rights to own' if I want to abuse those rights in carrying round something (my ornament in this case) that could, if I chose, be absolutely bloody lethal. Something that could kill many, many people

I think we agree on virtually everything now. Nice to find someone I agree with about restricting these kinds of things. I'll give you some time to digest what we've talked about then I'll move forward with some more 'only sensible' restrictions to inanimate objects that could kill many, many people. (Write some 'Guns are great I'm never banning them' response if you want -- I understand .. 1 step at a time ...

:x Okay, I obviously don't think you get it. We should not restrict any of these things at all. No ban on shoelaces or cups or plastic or glass containers or any of that, as that would be just plain stupid. Carrying around a glass or plastic container is fine. Mustard gas or any toxic biological agent is not okay, as I have stated above multiple times.

it's cool micfranklin you have made it perfectly clear your thought with regards to items that can kill many people and I agree with you.

Chill! We're on the same side here! Let's leave it alone for a few weeks before we discuss other items that can kill many, many people.

As I said -- 1 step at a time. Just chill, it's not awful that we agree on stuff you know!

micfranklin · Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 9:08 am Post subject:

britboy wrote: micfranklin wrote: britboy wrote: micfranklin wrote: britboy wrote: micfranklin wrote: britboy wrote: Yep -- my ornament should be banned alright as it (amongst other more common items) fall clearly into that category

Uh, hold on a minute...I never said your ornament or any common item should be banned. I said that "most ornaments people own don't contain lethal gases."

Unless the ornament you're thinking of is mustard gas or some other lethal agent :?

So you are saying that I should be able to carry round a glass ornament full of mustard gas? Or I shouldn't? Please clarify.

No you shouldn't be able to. Even if its not the container that's lethal, it's what's in the container that's deadly to people.

Well it's brilliant that we agree :tu: as I said in that last post (end of page 1) ...

Quote:
virtually every thing people carry round do not have the capability of killing many people in fact its only things like my 'ornament' and a few other items that do. So, well, I understand .. you do think it's worth restricting any so called 'human rights to own' if I want to abuse those rights in carrying round something (my ornament in this case) that could, if I chose, be absolutely bloody lethal. Something that could kill many, many people

I think we agree on virtually everything now. Nice to find someone I agree with about restricting these kinds of things. I'll give you some time to digest what we've talked about then I'll move forward with some more 'only sensible' restrictions to inanimate objects that could kill many, many people. (Write some 'Guns are great I'm never banning them' response if you want -- I understand .. 1 step at a time ...

:x Okay, I obviously don't think you get it. We should not restrict any of these things at all. No ban on shoelaces or cups or plastic or glass containers or any of that, as that would be just plain stupid. Carrying around a glass or plastic container is fine. Mustard gas or any toxic biological agent is not okay, as I have stated above multiple times.

it's cool micfranklin you have made it perfectly clear your thought with regards to items that can kill many people and I agree with you.

Chill! We're on the same side here! Let's leave it alone for a few weeks before we discuss other items that can kill many, many people.

As I said -- 1 step at a time. Just chill, it's not awful that we agree on stuff you know!

Let me try this: if you do use any common item in the right way it could kill somebody i.e. beating someone to death with a chair, but you don't see bans on chairs floating around as the majority of people out there use chairs to sit on. Same thing with guns: if you're quick enough you can gun down a murderer in your house before he kills you or nearby family, as the majority of people in society do.

As for toxic biological agents, that would NOT be for the self-defense, as toxic gas, when released, would not only kill said intruder but everyone else in the house, thus making it a suicidal attempt.

wyldejackyl · Joined: 10 Apr 2006 Posts: 7205 Location: Chicago, IL

Holy s**t he's used that argument in this thread too?

Okay okay..what's next britboy? You're going to compare owning/carrying a gun to everyone having a nuke in their briefcase? Or how about a bag of botulinum toxin (sure great for skin care professionals, in limited quantities)? Maybe anthrax, or the plague, or the bird flu?

micfranklin doesn't agree with you britboy. he agrees that WMDs should be illegal. Guns are not a WMD.

britboy · Joined: 02 Jun 2006 Posts: 3571 Location: London

wyldejackyl wrote: Holy s**t he's used that argument in this thread too?

Okay okay..what's next britboy? You're going to compare owning/carrying a gun to everyone having a nuke in their briefcase? Or how about a bag of botulinum toxin (sure great for skin care professionals, in limited quantities)? Maybe anthrax, or the plague, or the bird flu?

micfranklin doesn't agree with you britboy. he agrees that WMDs should be illegal. Guns are not a WMD.
Listen micfranklin doesn't need you to protect him. He's making important changes to his viewpoints, isn't it his freedom to do so?

Listen -- there's like - 1 - soldier making his first steps in leaving the wacky camp .. let's just let him form his own conclusions on the information he has read please.

(micfranklin -- you should write another madly pro-gun reply to this if you read it, try and write some ranting 'I love guns Britboy is talking trash' reply -- trust me -- long term it will make the whole change-process easier. real hardcore pro-gunners hate it when people start realising some home truths. You probably will consider yourself firmly pro-gun for some time yet and this forum should be the last place to admit you're finally, slowely coming round to the common sense conclusions with regards to the issue (you're not alone, I reckon 90% of the Western World agree with our viewpoints .. just not many on this forum).

wyldejackyl · Joined: 10 Apr 2006 Posts: 7205 Location: Chicago, IL

90% of the western world is composed of mindless idiots that believe everything they see/hear on TV - and you must be one of them to discount the overwhelming odds AGAINST arms control in any modern society.

I'm not protecting micfranklin, I'm merely reiterating to you, the basic skills of english comprehension. And unless you are blind or insane..he's not changing his viewpoints any more than you are.

No one ever asks anyone who's "anti-gun" to love guns. They don't even ask them to like them. All we ask for is for people who do not wish to carry firearms, do not infringe on our right. Freedom is absolute until it infringes upon another's freedom. A gun cannot cause damage unless it is intentionally used, the same way that any tool is. Your arguments tend to remain so focused on pro-gun/anti-gun viewpoints, it's sickening. To think that freedom can be limited first with the right to bear arms and then..to what end? Have you ever read 1984 by George Orwell?

I will say it again: freedom is responsibility and consideration. It has nothing to do with being for or against anything. It does in your mind, because it's the only way you can justify not allowing an object in society merely on the grounds that it "might" be dangerous "sometimes," and in all of those cases requires a conscious human decision to make it so.

micfranklin · Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:53 pm Post subject:

britboy wrote: wyldejackyl wrote: Holy s**t he's used that argument in this thread too?

Okay okay..what's next britboy? You're going to compare owning/carrying a gun to everyone having a nuke in their briefcase? Or how about a bag of botulinum toxin (sure great for skin care professionals, in limited quantities)? Maybe anthrax, or the plague, or the bird flu?

micfranklin doesn't agree with you britboy. he agrees that WMDs should be illegal. Guns are not a WMD.
Listen micfranklin doesn't need you to protect him. He's making important changes to his viewpoints, isn't it his freedom to do so?

Listen -- there's like - 1 - soldier making his first steps in leaving the wacky camp .. let's just let him form his own conclusions on the information he has read please.

(micfranklin -- you should write another madly pro-gun reply to this if you read it, try and write some ranting 'I love guns Britboy is talking trash' reply -- trust me -- long term it will make the whole change-process easier. real hardcore pro-gunners hate it when people start realising some home truths. You probably will consider yourself firmly pro-gun for some time yet and this forum should be the last place to admit you're finally, slowely coming round to the common sense conclusions with regards to the issue (you're not alone, I reckon 90% of the Western World agree with our viewpoints .. just not many on this forum).

Would those home truths include that using toxic biological agents in the home to defend against intruders would be suicidal? Or that gun control means lack of defense for good citizens and criminals have an easier time raising hell for them?

Britboy, let me make this clear: a container, be it glass or plastic, full of biological agents is deadly if released. The container is the one thing keeping said agents from killing all, assuming that the chemicals are not acidid.

britboy wrote: Yep -- my ornament should be banned alright as it (amongst other more common items) fall clearly into that category

Remember that? Yes, it is possible to beat someone to death with a certain item like a chair or a box full of rocks or a log. The thing is that none of those are classified as "actual weapons," and thus banning them would be more than just retarded.

Blinky · Joined: 18 Mar 2006 Posts: 2569

wyldejackyl wrote: 90% of the western world is composed of mindless idiots that believe everything they see/hear on TV - and you must be one of them to discount the overwhelming odds AGAINST arms control in any modern society.

Of course. Its not possible that every other modern society is correct while America is wrong. Need you be reminded of the fact that you are more likely to be raped, assualted, and murdered in the United states than you are in Britain? But how can that be when your firearm ownership is so widespread? What explains this anomoly?

Quote: No one ever asks anyone who's "anti-gun" to love guns. They don't even ask them to like them. All we ask for is for people who do not wish to carry firearms, do not infringe on our right. Freedom is absolute until it infringes upon another's freedom.

I could not agree more. I'm just glad that bullets are designed to stop dead in the air and fall to the ground when fired at someone who doesn't have a gun in their hand.

Quote: A gun cannot cause damage unless it is intentionally used, the same way that any tool is.

Name another "tool" that can have the same disasterous consequences as a gun when intentially used for no good. I'm waiting...

Quote: Your arguments tend to remain so focused on pro-gun/anti-gun viewpoints, it's sickening. To think that freedom can be limited first with the right to bear arms and then..to what end? Have you ever read 1984 by George Orwell?

An Orwell-ian world can only exist if the proles do what they're told. There are better ways to resist tyranny than the primitive avenues you advocate. For one, you don't work or obey orders. The country collapses economically and big brother is in charge of a useless strip of land worth nothing.

thefranzkafkafront · Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 7:05 pm Post subject:

britboy wrote: micfranklin wrote: britboy wrote: Yep -- my ornament should be banned alright as it (amongst other more common items) fall clearly into that category

Uh, hold on a minute...I never said your ornament or any common item should be banned. I said that "most ornaments people own don't contain lethal gases."

Unless the ornament you're thinking of is mustard gas or some other lethal agent :?

So you are saying that I should be able to carry round a glass ornament full of mustard gas? Or I shouldn't? Please clarify.

You'd only successed in injuring yourself so why not.

Im assuming your not that hot on the properties of mustard gas.

Snake · Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 3:44 pm Post subject:

lol, wtf britboy, your threads keep getting lamer

britboy · Joined: 02 Jun 2006 Posts: 3571 Location: London

Kamel wrote: lol, wtf britboy, your threads keep getting lamer

LOL Kamel -- I've just read a load of your previous posts! Read them yourself! You never, ever, bring anything to any debate you 'participate' in. Just cheesy 1-liners.

What a waste of time!

mattman42 · Joined: 26 Apr 2005 Posts: 661 Location: Maine

britboy wrote: Kamel wrote: lol, wtf britboy, your threads keep getting lamer

LOL Kamel -- I've just read a load of your previous posts! Read them yourself! You never, ever, bring anything to any debate you 'participate' in. Just cheesy 1-liners.

What a waste of time!

Nevertheless, he still has a point.

Blinky · Joined: 18 Mar 2006 Posts: 2569

mattman42 wrote: britboy wrote: Kamel wrote: lol, wtf britboy, your threads keep getting lamer

LOL Kamel -- I've just read a load of your previous posts! Read them yourself! You never, ever, bring anything to any debate you 'participate' in. Just cheesy 1-liners.

What a waste of time!

Nevertheless, he still has a point.

So does britboy. The difference is that if Kamel doesn't like a thread he can choose not to post on it. Aand as britboy implied, it would probably be better if he didn't.

private_citizen · Joined: 27 Aug 2006 Posts: 575 Location: New Hampshire

britboy wrote: micfranklin wrote: wyldejackyl wrote: Automobile deaths far eclipse those of gun deaths in america..yet they hand those licenses out to every idiot that comes into this country..legal or ILLEGAL. Yet I can't carry a piece of metal in my pocket. It might be "too dangerous" to myself and everyone around me. LOL! What do they think a 3000lb car is?!

Or a gas tanker driving down the road at 70 mph, which has to weigh at least twice as much as any car and more explosive, too.

I guess you're right. electric shocks must kill THOUSANDS of people a year. Yet they won't let me carry around a 'completely airtight container' with a biological disease in it such as Anthrax.

LOL!

Completely insane. Why can't I carry around my biological warfare kit? It's hardly going to magically split open and poison people. If they ban that, surely the should also ban electricity right?

:roll:

Logic.

for one you want to use a contagious pathogen, not a projectile.

mathurin · Posted: Sun Oct 29, 2006 11:56 pm Post subject:

britboy wrote: wyldejackyl wrote: Holy s**t he's used that argument in this thread too?

Okay okay..what's next britboy? You're going to compare owning/carrying a gun to everyone having a nuke in their briefcase? Or how about a bag of botulinum toxin (sure great for skin care professionals, in limited quantities)? Maybe anthrax, or the plague, or the bird flu?

micfranklin doesn't agree with you britboy. he agrees that WMDs should be illegal. Guns are not a WMD.
Listen micfranklin doesn't need you to protect him. He's making important changes to his viewpoints, isn't it his freedom to do so?

Listen -- there's like - 1 - soldier making his first steps in leaving the wacky camp .. let's just let him form his own conclusions on the information he has read please.

(micfranklin -- you should write another madly pro-gun reply to this if you read it, try and write some ranting 'I love guns Britboy is talking trash' reply -- trust me -- long term it will make the whole change-process easier. real hardcore pro-gunners hate it when people start realising some home truths. You probably will consider yourself firmly pro-gun for some time yet and this forum should be the last place to admit you're finally, slowely coming round to the common sense conclusions with regards to the issue (you're not alone, I reckon 90% of the Western World agree with our viewpoints .. just not many on this forum).

hrm, sounds just like lucky luke, how amusing, and predictable