30 Mar 06
Originally posted by Rajk999So the police shoot him just in case.
Let me help you out here and put this in simple language that you can probably understand. A man says publicly that he wants to shoot his neighbour, then he goes to the police to apply for a firearm licence claiming that he wants to join the local rifle club. The police has no proof that he wants to use it to shoot his neighbour, but there is evidence to suggest that he might.
30 Mar 06
Originally posted by princeoforangeSo the man is forbidden from buying a rifle.
No, th police forbid him a rifle license. If he takes a rifle by force, then will be the time to shoot him.
Meantime, he needs to renew his plumbing, so he buys some pipes and the police shoot him because they claim he could have made a rifle with it.
30 Mar 06
Originally posted by RedmikeUnlikely scenario. And it's spoiling the storyline, the whole thing was meant to be an analogy on the Iran situation and your part doesn't fit.
So the man is forbidden from buying a rifle.
Meantime, he needs to renew his plumbing, so he buys some pipes and the police shoot him because they claim he could have made a rifle with it.
30 Mar 06
Originally posted by RedmikeMike, lets be serious. Dont you think that Iran's possession of nuclear facilities should be controlled by some authority - the UN security council for example. It makes no sense for countries with a desire to wipe out another to have the means to do so.
I think it fits perfectly.
30 Mar 06
Originally posted by Rajk999Oh, wow, coming from an AMERICAN. Can you say HYPOCRITE?
Mike, lets be serious. Dont you think that Iran's possession of nuclear facilities should be controlled by some authority - the UN security council for example. It makes no sense for countries with a desire to wipe out another to have the means to do so.
I think that the UN should monitor the U.S's facilities. There's no telling what someone with that many nukes might do, especially if they are an American. After all, fair's fair.
30 Mar 06
Originally posted by Rajk999Speaking of "simple language", I've worked with language further than the average American.
Let me help you out here and put this in simple language that you can probably understand. A man says publicly that he wants to shoot his neighbour, then he goes to the police to apply for a firearm licence claiming that he wants to join the local rifle club. The police has no proof that he wants to use it to shoot his neighbour, but there is evidence to suggest that he might.
http://www.wpln.org/news/featuretranscripts/students-at-capitol_032106.html
30 Mar 06
Originally posted by Rajk999Firstly I'd be inclined to think the man is crazy.
Let me help you out here and put this in simple language that you can probably understand. A man says publicly that he wants to shoot his neighbour, then he goes to the police to apply for a firearm licence claiming that he wants to join the local rifle club. The police has no proof that he wants to use it to shoot his neighbour, but there is evidence to suggest that he might.
Secondly in this instance it might be that the man's neighbour is pretty well armed and can probably protect himself.
Thirdly, where does all this arming end? I mean, c'mon. Do you seriously think the police shoot the man and then that's it? The man's brothers and sisters and friends are all going to be looking for their own bit of retribution.
Maybe it might be worth considering something that might end the continuous cycle of 'he hit me, so I'm going to hit him back'.
31 Mar 06
Originally posted by abejnoodAren't you supposed to be an American?
Oh, wow, coming from an AMERICAN. Can you say HYPOCRITE?
I think that the UN should monitor the U.S's facilities. There's no telling what someone with that many nukes might do, especially if they are an American. After all, fair's fair.
31 Mar 06
Originally posted by slimjimSorry where did I say that?
Well you are the idiot that believes in International Law.
You made a statement about Iran flouting INternational Law as if that made it okay to do whatever you felt like. I suggested that by your logic the US was also in breach of International Law. I haven't once said that I support IL.