'Your Freedom' what laws would you repeal?...

[Hedders]

Plotloss said:

I'd make the cultivation of one cannabis plant for personal consumption legal.

This one would do me nicely.

[TuxRacer]

Frankeh said:

The government should have their own datacenter for stuff like this.

They do, that's what's slowing it down.

[Frankeh]

TuxRacer said:

Frankeh said:

The government should have their own datacenter for stuff like this.

They do, that's what's slowing it down.

[OnTheOverrun]

ErnestM said:

Tell Clegg to give you your guns back. You'll quickly see if he is serious or just playing the "freedom and liberty" card.

Wouldn't make any difference - when handguns were legal, virtually no-one ever owned one. Now they are banned the statistic is virtually identical. It's just not the same issue here as it is in the US and I say that as a gun owner and as an ex-pat who lived in California for several years.

[Frankeh]

OnTheOverrun said:

ErnestM said:

Tell Clegg to give you your guns back. You'll quickly see if he is serious or just playing the "freedom and liberty" card.

Wouldn't make any difference - when handguns were legal, virtually no-one ever owned one. Now they are banned the statistic is virtually identical. It's just not the same issue here as it is in the US and I say that as a gun owner and as an ex-pat who lived in California for several years.

There would be a huge boom in sales if it was announced tomorrow that handguns were legal again. Every Tom, Dick and Jamall would buy one.

[Hedders]

Frankeh said:

OnTheOverrun said:

ErnestM said:

Tell Clegg to give you your guns back. You'll quickly see if he is serious or just playing the "freedom and liberty" card.

Wouldn't make any difference - when handguns were legal, virtually no-one ever owned one. Now they are banned the statistic is virtually identical. It's just not the same issue here as it is in the US and I say that as a gun owner and as an ex-pat who lived in California for several years.

There would be a huge boom in sales if it was announced tomorrow that handguns were legal again. Every Tom, Dick and Jamall would buy one.

I would.

[Frankeh]

Hedders said:

Frankeh said:

OnTheOverrun said:

ErnestM said:

Tell Clegg to give you your guns back. You'll quickly see if he is serious or just playing the "freedom and liberty" card.

Wouldn't make any difference - when handguns were legal, virtually no-one ever owned one. Now they are banned the statistic is virtually identical. It's just not the same issue here as it is in the US and I say that as a gun owner and as an ex-pat who lived in California for several years.

There would be a huge boom in sales if it was announced tomorrow that handguns were legal again. Every Tom, Dick and Jamall would buy one.

I would.

As would I.

[ErnestM]

OnTheOverrun said:

ErnestM said:

Tell Clegg to give you your guns back. You'll quickly see if he is serious or just playing the "freedom and liberty" card.

Wouldn't make any difference - when handguns were legal, virtually no-one ever owned one. Now they are banned the statistic is virtually identical. It's just not the same issue here as it is in the US and I say that as a gun owner and as an ex-pat who lived in California for several years.

Doesn't matter if anyone buys one. It's a test. Does Clegg have the courage of his convictions or is all of this "bring back your freedoms" just window dressing?

[Hedders]

We have the technology to have smart guns, right?

I am pretty sure you can get guns that recognise the owners finger print, or is that still sci-fi?
It should laso be possible for the gun owner to wear an implant that the gun that detect to stop the gun firing in the direction of the implant, or something

[Frankeh]

Hedders said:

We have the technology to have smart guns, right?

I am pretty sure you can get guns that recognise the owners finger print, or is that still sci-fi?
It should laso be possible for the gun owner to wear an implant that the gun that detect to stop the gun firing in the direction of the implant, or something

Judge dread was not a documentary!

[Hedders]

I was sure some company had developed a 'safety gun'!

[Parrot of Doom]

Another bullst idea along the same lines as the No.10 petition website.

"We're listening, but we're not really paying any attention. fkoff and stop bothering us, we know best."

[Dick_Phallus]

Frankeh said:

OnTheOverrun said:

ErnestM said:

Tell Clegg to give you your guns back. You'll quickly see if he is serious or just playing the "freedom and liberty" card.

Wouldn't make any difference - when handguns were legal, virtually no-one ever owned one. Now they are banned the statistic is virtually identical. It's just not the same issue here as it is in the US and I say that as a gun owner and as an ex-pat who lived in California for several years.

There would be a huge boom in sales if it was announced tomorrow that handguns were legal again. Every Tom, Dick and Jamall would buy one.

Like everyone would run out and buy a shotgun if they were trivially easy to get a license for...Oh wait...

[Hedders]

Dick_Phallus said:

Frankeh said:

OnTheOverrun said:

ErnestM said:

Tell Clegg to give you your guns back. You'll quickly see if he is serious or just playing the "freedom and liberty" card.

Wouldn't make any difference - when handguns were legal, virtually no-one ever owned one. Now they are banned the statistic is virtually identical. It's just not the same issue here as it is in the US and I say that as a gun owner and as an ex-pat who lived in California for several years.

There would be a huge boom in sales if it was announced tomorrow that handguns were legal again. Every Tom, Dick and Jamall would buy one.

Like everyone would run out and buy a shotgun if they were trivially easy to get a license for...Oh wait...

Who wants to lug a shotgun around?

ETA: actually if i could carry a sawn off in one of those 'over the shoulder' type holsters where you reach behind your head and grab the butt that sticks up over your shoulder, that would be cool..

Edited by Hedders on Thursday 1st July 15:23

[Mikeyboy]

Well where do you start with laws you'd strike from the books.

the 1.5 mile barrier to protest/assembly around parliament. They shouldn't be protected from what we have to say and frankly the Police could abuse the hell out of that law should they want which is just wrong. There are more like that but thats one that springs to mind

Unenforceable laws or laws doubling up on existing legislation such as mobiles in cars.

Laws that no-one has been convicted of or prosecuted for in X number of years.

The recent anti-hunting laws. laws are supposed to be passed based upon research and good practice rather than a letter campaign from people who know nothing about the siuation.

I'm sure with a bit more thought I can think of hundreds more.

[jshell]

Wanta996Gotta said:

When Clegg was pressed this morning on would they actually change the laws going from what the Public may ask for like abolishing the Succession Law which bans Wills and Harry from marrying a Catholic. He hesitated and coughed and muttered something about a Grey Squirrel law?

Nothing wrong with that law imho. To have the possibility of a UK Monarch who is subservient to a ex-Nazi, child abusing apologist human being in another sovereign nation is just plainly wrong. Let them renounce Catholicism if they want to marry into the Royal family.

[Dick_Phallus]

jshell said:

Wanta996Gotta said:

When Clegg was pressed this morning on would they actually change the laws going from what the Public may ask for like abolishing the Succession Law which bans Wills and Harry from marrying a Catholic. He hesitated and coughed and muttered something about a Grey Squirrel law?

Nothing wrong with that law imho. To have the possibility of a UK Monarch who is subservient to a ex-Nazi, child abusing apologist human being in another sovereign nation is just plainly wrong. Let them renounce Catholicism if they want to marry into the Royal family.

Ohhhh dear....

[jshell]

Dick_Phallus said:

jshell said:

Wanta996Gotta said:

When Clegg was pressed this morning on would they actually change the laws going from what the Public may ask for like abolishing the Succession Law which bans Wills and Harry from marrying a Catholic. He hesitated and coughed and muttered something about a Grey Squirrel law?

Nothing wrong with that law imho. To have the possibility of a UK Monarch who is subservient to a ex-Nazi, child abusing apologist human being in another sovereign nation is just plainly wrong. Let them renounce Catholicism if they want to marry into the Royal family.

Ohhhh dear....

Not keen on other religions either, y'understand!

[Hedders]

Mikeyboy said:

the 1.5 mile barrier to protest/assembly around parliament. They shouldn't be protected from what we have to say and frankly the Police could abuse the hell out of that law should they want which is just wrong.

I had not heard about that one! That is quite a large area of london they have banned protest/assembly in

[s2art]

Dick_Phallus said:

jshell said:

Wanta996Gotta said:

When Clegg was pressed this morning on would they actually change the laws going from what the Public may ask for like abolishing the Succession Law which bans Wills and Harry from marrying a Catholic. He hesitated and coughed and muttered something about a Grey Squirrel law?

Nothing wrong with that law imho. To have the possibility of a UK Monarch who is subservient to a ex-Nazi, child abusing apologist human being in another sovereign nation is just plainly wrong. Let them renounce Catholicism if they want to marry into the Royal family.

Ohhhh dear....

Why? Although phrased rather provocatively, the reasoning and sentiment is spot on. We do not want the monarch in anyway at risk of undue influence. It was bad enough having Tony Blair pandering to his wife's religious delusions.