Author Topic: Travel Checklist: airline, rental car, insurance, mobile phone, gun – LOL  (Read 1436 times)

Offline Lazerus

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2159
Travel Checklist: airline, rental car, insurance, mobile phone, gun – LOL
« Reply #45 on: February 12, 2005, 04:01:01 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Zulu7
That last link is just plain daft!


Can you argue against the logic??

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
Travel Checklist: airline, rental car, insurance, mobile phone, gun – LOL
« Reply #46 on: February 12, 2005, 10:03:46 AM »
nashwan... if you are upper class you get your guns from the upperclass lawbreakers who feel you are one of them... if you are a criminal you can spot the criminals in any country who will get you a gun based on the profit and unlikely chance that you are a cop or a snitch.   If you want a gun in any country you can get one save a very tiny island ( even smaller than yours) with very crowded and racist/authoritive people like say japan.

zulu... all the lawsuits being aimed at gun manufacturers are failing.  I am hoping for some protection against these suits now that Bush is at the helm again tho as they are expensiv3e and are driving the costr of guns up slightly.

lazs

Offline Toad

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18415
Travel Checklist: airline, rental car, insurance, mobile phone, gun – LOL
« Reply #47 on: February 12, 2005, 10:43:04 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by beet1e
I never said anything of the kind.
[/b]

Of course you have. In one of the many discussions we've had over how pointless it was for your politicoes to pass those post-Hungerford/Dunblane laws. And I have no doubt you will again in some other thread.

Quote
How do you feel about banning sharp instruments from aircraft cabins?


That it's a sop to political correctness. Just like when they took my Gillette track two razor away from me post-9/11. In those early days, it was deemed to dangerous for cockpit crew to have a double-edged plastic razor I guess.

The real problem as I see it is their screening process. As Grun used to post, it' isn't the 90 year old Norwegian Buddhist grandmothers that are doing this stuff.

That being said, my entire time in commercial aviation there has been a prohibition of knives with blades longer than 3 inches in the cabin. Not a single problem with that that I can remember but times do change.

If you're going to take the position that the population of an airliner cabin is directly analagous to the situation and behavior of society as a whole, go ahead. That'll just look like a Zulu post by Beet.
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!

Offline beet1e

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7848
Travel Checklist: airline, rental car, insurance, mobile phone, gun – LOL
« Reply #48 on: February 12, 2005, 11:11:22 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Toad
Of course you have. In one of the many discussions we've had over how pointless it was for your politicoes to pass those post-Hungerford/Dunblane laws. And I have no doubt you will again in some other thread.
No, I reposted what I actually said a few posts back ^ The issue was whether the 1990s legislation was an initial BAN or an extension to already tight gun control legislation, first passed in 1920. I have always said it was the latter.  That's WHY we have all these arguments - you and others keep asking what the "gun ban" achieved, and I have to keep reminding you that we already had tight gun control legislation from decades past. In all honesty, I don't know what changed in 1996/97.
Quote
If you're going to take the position that the population of an airliner cabin is directly analagous to the situation and behavior of society as a whole, go ahead. That'll just look like a Zulu post by Beet.
ROFL!

Offline Toad

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18415
Travel Checklist: airline, rental car, insurance, mobile phone, gun – LOL
« Reply #49 on: February 12, 2005, 11:18:28 AM »
Beet, essentially you  either don't know or don't understand or refuse to accept the history and reasoning of gun control in England.

You demonstrated one of the above in the last thread.

I said what I meant about the way you discuss things now and there's really no point in rehashing it.
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!

Offline Otto

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1566
      • http://www.cris.com/~ziggy2/
Travel Checklist: airline, rental car, insurance, mobile phone, gun – LOL
« Reply #50 on: February 12, 2005, 11:45:46 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Zulu7
Otto YAWN zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


"Nighty night....,

sleep tight......,

don't let the bedbugs bite"

Offline beet1e

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7848
Travel Checklist: airline, rental car, insurance, mobile phone, gun – LOL
« Reply #51 on: February 12, 2005, 12:35:47 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Toad
Beet, essentially you  either don't know or don't understand or refuse to accept the history and reasoning of gun control in England.
Even if that were true, it still wouldn't change the fact that gun control was extremely tight prior to 1996. The legislation that followed made it even tighter.

Quote
I said what I meant about the way you discuss things now and there's really no point in rehashing it.
- and you were wrong, as my statement of 28 Oct. 2004 amply demonstrates.

Offline Toad

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18415
Travel Checklist: airline, rental car, insurance, mobile phone, gun – LOL
« Reply #52 on: February 12, 2005, 01:29:33 PM »
It may have been tighter. Doesn't change the truth that it was entirely unnecessary and had no effect other than to strip folks of their handguns to no purpose.

I'll let our readers judge who was right or wrong. I'm not going to interfere with your delusions.
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!

Offline beet1e

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7848
Travel Checklist: airline, rental car, insurance, mobile phone, gun – LOL
« Reply #53 on: February 12, 2005, 01:38:48 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Toad
It may have been tighter. Doesn't change the truth that it was entirely unnecessary and had no effect other than to strip folks of their handguns to no purpose.  
You're saying that I could have bought a handgun in 1995? Bullshirt.

Offline Toad

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18415
Travel Checklist: airline, rental car, insurance, mobile phone, gun – LOL
« Reply #54 on: February 12, 2005, 01:46:46 PM »
You could have if the little monarch in your local police station had decided you had a legitimate reason.

But typically, once again you throw out a red herring.

No, what I said is what I've always said.

The post-Dunblane/Hungerford bans were a political knee-jerk reaction that did not lower your gun crime rate. They were unnecessary. They had no real effect on gun crime but they did strip lawful gun owners of their handguns. The law was pointless.

Nashwan, if you have noticed, is essentially of the same opinion.
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!

Offline beet1e

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7848
Travel Checklist: airline, rental car, insurance, mobile phone, gun – LOL
« Reply #55 on: February 13, 2005, 05:05:03 AM »
Mr. Toad,

As I have said all along, the 1997 legislation did bugger all and that's because gun control was already very tight indeed. I have posted statements I made last October to that effect, but you don't seem to want to accept them. You are so consumed with your erroneous belief that the REAL gun ban was in 1997, to the point where you believe that Britain was a nation of gun enthusiasts, and that large numbers of Britons were "forced to hand in their weapons" against their wishes. It's true, the amnesties pulled in thousands of guns, but highly unlikely that these were held legitimately. Your NRA source said "Thus the Firearms Act of 1920 sailed through Parliament. Britons who had formerly enjoyed a right to arms were now allowed to possess pistols and rifles only if they proved they had "good reason" for receiving a police permit.” Nobody had "enjoyed a right" to arms. In Britain, that has never existed as a right the way it has in America with the 2nd amendment. Those who carried arms did so in many cases to protect themselves against highwaymen and their ilk on long coach journeys, for example, in the days when said coach was drawn by horses.

Any notion you or the NRA has about people in Britain going out to shoot guns at the range just for the hell of it is largely false. Of course, the NRA is able to couch its propaganda in terms like that because the target audience is American, many of whom have never left their home state, and therefore cannot conceive the idea of an unarmed society. Neither, it seems, can you.
Quote
You could have if the little monarch in your local police station had decided you had a legitimate reason.
Once again you're doing what you berate zulu7 for doing - posting like a male donkey. The little monarch in question in 1920 was His Majesty King George V, grandfather of the current Queen. He was not in the habit of hanging around at the local nick. And any legitimate reason for having a gun would not include the mere fact that you wanted one to go plinking at tin cans etc., or to exercise any "rights", because there WERE no rights. Stick that up your shotgun barrel and smoke it.

Offline Toad

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18415
Travel Checklist: airline, rental car, insurance, mobile phone, gun – LOL
« Reply #56 on: February 13, 2005, 09:26:21 AM »
Didn't even read it Beet. You're just don't know enough about the subject to bother.
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
Travel Checklist: airline, rental car, insurance, mobile phone, gun – LOL
« Reply #57 on: February 13, 2005, 09:35:21 AM »
so long as you can remain a tiny little island that is behind the times and "traditional" and regulated.... you will be ok... when you catch up to the times you will find that you will indeed need more guns to =less crime.    you are starting allready by arming your police.

lazs

Offline beet1e

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7848
Travel Checklist: airline, rental car, insurance, mobile phone, gun – LOL
« Reply #58 on: February 13, 2005, 10:21:02 AM »
Lazs

The current process by which the British police are become armed as a matter of routine will merely harmonise Britain with the rest of Europe.

Offline Nashwan

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1864
Travel Checklist: airline, rental car, insurance, mobile phone, gun – LOL
« Reply #59 on: February 13, 2005, 11:56:13 AM »
Quote
you are starting allready by arming your police.


What surprised me is that we are not arming the police more. I thought the numbers had soared, but apparently not.

The number of police officers trained and authorised to use guns went from 6738 in 1996/97 to 6096 in 2003/04. That's out of around 130,000 police officers.

They are issued guns more frequently than before, though.