|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
Well I think I'd agree that anarchy is bad. There's a difference between no government and one that tries to micromanage you though.
e.g. a law which requires you not to build a wall over a certain height on your own property or a law that requires you to have panes on your windows is a stupid, micromanagement law.
A law which doesn't allow people to do heroine makes sense, given the dangerous nature of that drug. You can't do heroine without hurting yourself in a very atrocious way, unlike smoking for example.
|
On September 02 2014 23:14 writer22816 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2014 22:33 Incognoto wrote:On September 02 2014 10:30 Stratos_speAr wrote:On September 02 2014 05:25 Millitron wrote:On September 02 2014 05:21 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On September 02 2014 05:04 Incognoto wrote:On September 02 2014 03:44 Karpfen wrote:On August 31 2014 22:36 Incognoto wrote:On August 31 2014 07:50 Karpfen wrote:On August 31 2014 04:28 Incognoto wrote: Why on earth would you ban alcohol? Genuine question, which imo has something to do with the topic at hand, because your answer is very likely to apply to firearms as well. It has no practical use outside of getting drunk and causes a lot of deaths. Firearms cause many deaths and they do not defend a house as well as a good alarm system or a dog. I guess you cannot use the alarm system as a toy though. That is some absolutely atrocious logic and I don't think I'm even going to waste time arguing against that. Still, I'll bite. Why on earth would you ban something on the grounds that it isn't "practical"? Do you have a picture of Stalin above your bed? The fact remains that alcohol is something that a lot of people enjoy and drink responsibly. They'll drink with good food, they'll drink with friends, they'll get a bit tipsy but who the hell cares since being tipsy is fun. As long as you don't drink excessively, you are fine. As long as you don't drink and drive, others are also fine. So who the hell are you to say others shouldn't drink? Because stupid people won't be fine? Is that really good enough to ban something? That's some really crazy talk right there, you should be careful. ^ This exact reasoning is pretty much applicable to firearms as well. Banning something on the grounds that stupid people might cause problems is NEVER a good thing to do. E: Also disregarding the usage of guns for hunting, sport shooting, protection and pest control is incredibly arrogant. You don't care about hunting or sport shooting, so you should prevent others from having those interests. Screw you, that's terribly arrogant. You also live in a safe, European urban area, so screw the need to shoot at dangerous animals, right? Or intruders for that matter. People are using their own, limited, views as a reason to ban firearms. It's incredible how narrow-minded some people can be. Good. Now explain me why you define stalinist every single country who bans drugs. Also if alcohol caused problems only to those who used them your reasoning would be correct but we both know it is not the case. What if i am just walking around and a drunk guy drives over me? I do drink but i would be willing to sacrify this freedom of mine so that stupid people who abuse alcohol will not be able to hurt anyone (it is kinda impossible to prevent people from drinking as i said in a previous post. I am merely stating he reasons you should ban alcohol). On a side note tone down a bit the hatred. Don't compare me to criminals and immature edgy stuff like that. But that is edgy. People who harbor such views give me goosebumps and it's these kinds of ideas that make me lose faith in humanity. I do not want to be micromanaged by a government telling me what's good and what's not. I think that I'm smart enough to figure that out by myself. I know that abusing alcohol is dangerous to both me and others. So I'm not going to abuse it. Telling me not to drink for those reasons is basically telling me that I'm an idiot with no sense of responsibility. That, to me, would be disgusting. I would rather die than live a life where I am not responsible for my actions. Luckily, most governments do not harbor such dangerous views. Drugs is a different matter in that they're much more addictive. Yes, so is alcohol, yet much less so. You can drink responsibly without problem. You can't do cocaine or heroine "casually". That is serious shit that will consume your life, it makes sense to ban that. Alcohol does not fit that category and frankly, neither do firearms. Nonetheless, this does a good job at explaining why I feel a blanket ban on firearms is bad. I feel bad, to be perfectly frank, that Europeans let themselves get trod on in such a way by governments. Then again, most Europeans tend to not care about things like responsibility, which I suppose is a cultural choice. You was doing well till you said "most Europeans tend to not care about things like responsibility, which I suppose is a cultural choice" Sigh. Can't believe you just equated drinking alcohol responsibly with American gun laws, and that somehow having a more restrictive american gun control is to not care about responsibility as an european culture because European culture totally restricts the consumption and buying of alcohol right? That's not what he said at all. He said Europeans don't care about responsibility because they're fine with the government not trusting them with guns, even if they happen to be model citizens. He doesn't like that Europeans tend to trust their governments more than the common man. I personally think its silly to trust a government more than the common man. The government is elected by, and made up of common people, they aren't angels. The government is limited by the fact that it answers to the people in general. What limits the common person? Nothing. The common person is an incredibly selfish, lazy, arrogant, irrational moron. Why should I trust some random person being allowed to have any kind of gun? Nonetheless, this does a good job at explaining why I feel a blanket ban on firearms is bad. I feel bad, to be perfectly frank, that Europeans let themselves get trod on in such a way by governments. Then again, most Europeans tend to not care about things like responsibility, which I suppose is a cultural choice. This kind of statement just makes you look like such a pathetic tool. American culture isn't about responsibility at all. I don't know what kind of ridiculous right-wing blogs you're reading, but you should try to broaden your horizons. They aren't a hivemind, but they seem pretty happy with the government being involved in their everyday lives constantly.
And to get guns in Europe, depending on the country, you have to abide by mountains of laws, and often cannot own certain types no matter how much paperwork you do. They may as well all be banned in places like the UK, you're limited so strictly in what you can and cannot own. European gun laws are like California's, only somehow even more strict and spanning a continent. Start listing all the freedoms that we supposedly enjoy in America that Europeans don't. I'll give you two: Guns Hate speech Got any other ones? If you consider the common person as lazy, selfish, arrogant and whatnot, you have a very poor view of society. That's an extremely cynical way of viewing things. The law also acts as a "limit" to the common man, as far as I know? The government does not answer to people either. You're a fool if you believe that. Go tell someone in the USSR back then, in North Korea right now or in Germany during the Nazi party's reign. Governments do not answer to people, unless we're talking about a full-out rebellion. I'm not saying governments are bad, anarchy is good. However, I'm sufficiently aware of things to know that I barely have any influence on what the government does. As of right now, I'm very angry at the entire French political system. From left to right, there isn't a single French political party that truly represents my views. What exactly can I do? The answer is nothing. I can however say that the French government at very least respects basic human rights, something which I can be thankful for. This isn't the case in a lot of countries. Also, yeah I don't know why Cannabis is banned. No, I don't know anything about cocaine. I have never been interested in trying it. Perhaps it can be casually done, I doubt that though. Not interested in trying; the same way I'm not interested in smoking even if that is legal. I call my own shots, I'm not going to do something just because the law allows me to. What? A democratic government answers to people. Comparing USA to North Korea, Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union is absurd. I would argue two things. First, we don't have a true democracy. Both parties do the exact same things when it comes to major issues. Democrats and Republicans both love the banks and the Federal Reserve. They both are interventionist when it comes to foreign relations. They will both screw you over if they think they can get away with it.
Second, with our media, the people rarely get fair, balanced, and informative news. It's all about conflict for the media, because conflict gets the ratings. They don't care about whatever issue is being discussed, they just talk about how this or that affects so-and-so's campaign. So even if we did have a better functioning party system, it would still not be an effective democracy, because the people have no information.
|
On September 03 2014 00:59 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2014 23:14 writer22816 wrote:On September 02 2014 22:33 Incognoto wrote:On September 02 2014 10:30 Stratos_speAr wrote:On September 02 2014 05:25 Millitron wrote:On September 02 2014 05:21 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On September 02 2014 05:04 Incognoto wrote:On September 02 2014 03:44 Karpfen wrote:On August 31 2014 22:36 Incognoto wrote:On August 31 2014 07:50 Karpfen wrote: [quote] It has no practical use outside of getting drunk and causes a lot of deaths. Firearms cause many deaths and they do not defend a house as well as a good alarm system or a dog. I guess you cannot use the alarm system as a toy though. That is some absolutely atrocious logic and I don't think I'm even going to waste time arguing against that. Still, I'll bite. Why on earth would you ban something on the grounds that it isn't "practical"? Do you have a picture of Stalin above your bed? The fact remains that alcohol is something that a lot of people enjoy and drink responsibly. They'll drink with good food, they'll drink with friends, they'll get a bit tipsy but who the hell cares since being tipsy is fun. As long as you don't drink excessively, you are fine. As long as you don't drink and drive, others are also fine. So who the hell are you to say others shouldn't drink? Because stupid people won't be fine? Is that really good enough to ban something? That's some really crazy talk right there, you should be careful. ^ This exact reasoning is pretty much applicable to firearms as well. Banning something on the grounds that stupid people might cause problems is NEVER a good thing to do. E: Also disregarding the usage of guns for hunting, sport shooting, protection and pest control is incredibly arrogant. You don't care about hunting or sport shooting, so you should prevent others from having those interests. Screw you, that's terribly arrogant. You also live in a safe, European urban area, so screw the need to shoot at dangerous animals, right? Or intruders for that matter. People are using their own, limited, views as a reason to ban firearms. It's incredible how narrow-minded some people can be. Good. Now explain me why you define stalinist every single country who bans drugs. Also if alcohol caused problems only to those who used them your reasoning would be correct but we both know it is not the case. What if i am just walking around and a drunk guy drives over me? I do drink but i would be willing to sacrify this freedom of mine so that stupid people who abuse alcohol will not be able to hurt anyone (it is kinda impossible to prevent people from drinking as i said in a previous post. I am merely stating he reasons you should ban alcohol). On a side note tone down a bit the hatred. Don't compare me to criminals and immature edgy stuff like that. But that is edgy. People who harbor such views give me goosebumps and it's these kinds of ideas that make me lose faith in humanity. I do not want to be micromanaged by a government telling me what's good and what's not. I think that I'm smart enough to figure that out by myself. I know that abusing alcohol is dangerous to both me and others. So I'm not going to abuse it. Telling me not to drink for those reasons is basically telling me that I'm an idiot with no sense of responsibility. That, to me, would be disgusting. I would rather die than live a life where I am not responsible for my actions. Luckily, most governments do not harbor such dangerous views. Drugs is a different matter in that they're much more addictive. Yes, so is alcohol, yet much less so. You can drink responsibly without problem. You can't do cocaine or heroine "casually". That is serious shit that will consume your life, it makes sense to ban that. Alcohol does not fit that category and frankly, neither do firearms. Nonetheless, this does a good job at explaining why I feel a blanket ban on firearms is bad. I feel bad, to be perfectly frank, that Europeans let themselves get trod on in such a way by governments. Then again, most Europeans tend to not care about things like responsibility, which I suppose is a cultural choice. You was doing well till you said "most Europeans tend to not care about things like responsibility, which I suppose is a cultural choice" Sigh. Can't believe you just equated drinking alcohol responsibly with American gun laws, and that somehow having a more restrictive american gun control is to not care about responsibility as an european culture because European culture totally restricts the consumption and buying of alcohol right? That's not what he said at all. He said Europeans don't care about responsibility because they're fine with the government not trusting them with guns, even if they happen to be model citizens. He doesn't like that Europeans tend to trust their governments more than the common man. I personally think its silly to trust a government more than the common man. The government is elected by, and made up of common people, they aren't angels. The government is limited by the fact that it answers to the people in general. What limits the common person? Nothing. The common person is an incredibly selfish, lazy, arrogant, irrational moron. Why should I trust some random person being allowed to have any kind of gun? Nonetheless, this does a good job at explaining why I feel a blanket ban on firearms is bad. I feel bad, to be perfectly frank, that Europeans let themselves get trod on in such a way by governments. Then again, most Europeans tend to not care about things like responsibility, which I suppose is a cultural choice. This kind of statement just makes you look like such a pathetic tool. American culture isn't about responsibility at all. I don't know what kind of ridiculous right-wing blogs you're reading, but you should try to broaden your horizons. They aren't a hivemind, but they seem pretty happy with the government being involved in their everyday lives constantly.
And to get guns in Europe, depending on the country, you have to abide by mountains of laws, and often cannot own certain types no matter how much paperwork you do. They may as well all be banned in places like the UK, you're limited so strictly in what you can and cannot own. European gun laws are like California's, only somehow even more strict and spanning a continent. Start listing all the freedoms that we supposedly enjoy in America that Europeans don't. I'll give you two: Guns Hate speech Got any other ones? If you consider the common person as lazy, selfish, arrogant and whatnot, you have a very poor view of society. That's an extremely cynical way of viewing things. The law also acts as a "limit" to the common man, as far as I know? The government does not answer to people either. You're a fool if you believe that. Go tell someone in the USSR back then, in North Korea right now or in Germany during the Nazi party's reign. Governments do not answer to people, unless we're talking about a full-out rebellion. I'm not saying governments are bad, anarchy is good. However, I'm sufficiently aware of things to know that I barely have any influence on what the government does. As of right now, I'm very angry at the entire French political system. From left to right, there isn't a single French political party that truly represents my views. What exactly can I do? The answer is nothing. I can however say that the French government at very least respects basic human rights, something which I can be thankful for. This isn't the case in a lot of countries. Also, yeah I don't know why Cannabis is banned. No, I don't know anything about cocaine. I have never been interested in trying it. Perhaps it can be casually done, I doubt that though. Not interested in trying; the same way I'm not interested in smoking even if that is legal. I call my own shots, I'm not going to do something just because the law allows me to. What? A democratic government answers to people. Comparing USA to North Korea, Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union is absurd. I would argue two things. First, we don't have a true democracy. Both parties do the exact same things when it comes to major issues. Democrats and Republicans both love the banks and the Federal Reserve. They both are interventionist when it comes to foreign relations. They will both screw you over if they think they can get away with it. Second, with our media, the people rarely get fair, balanced, and informative news. It's all about conflict for the media, because conflict gets the ratings. They don't care about whatever issue is being discussed, they just talk about how this or that affects so-and-so's campaign. So even if we did have a better functioning party system, it would still not be an effective democracy, because the people have no information.
First, television news has never been that great.
Second, both parties are now horribly corrupt because of technical issues with our democracy. Saying that this is impossible to fix without revolution is fatalistic bullshit. We've dealt with corruption before. Look up how we passed the 17th Amendment.
Third, that issue is mostly at the federal level. It doesn't really apply to local police forces, state governments, and such like that.
Fourth, the corporate media doesn't have separation between editorial and business aspects, so it always tends to support corporatist propaganda. The media does love being "neutral" but simply refuses to be objective. CNN is probably the most ridiculous when it comes to worshipping neutrality.
Lastly, support Wolf-PAC.
|
On September 02 2014 23:14 writer22816 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2014 22:33 Incognoto wrote:On September 02 2014 10:30 Stratos_speAr wrote:On September 02 2014 05:25 Millitron wrote:On September 02 2014 05:21 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On September 02 2014 05:04 Incognoto wrote:On September 02 2014 03:44 Karpfen wrote:On August 31 2014 22:36 Incognoto wrote:On August 31 2014 07:50 Karpfen wrote:On August 31 2014 04:28 Incognoto wrote: Why on earth would you ban alcohol? Genuine question, which imo has something to do with the topic at hand, because your answer is very likely to apply to firearms as well. It has no practical use outside of getting drunk and causes a lot of deaths. Firearms cause many deaths and they do not defend a house as well as a good alarm system or a dog. I guess you cannot use the alarm system as a toy though. That is some absolutely atrocious logic and I don't think I'm even going to waste time arguing against that. Still, I'll bite. Why on earth would you ban something on the grounds that it isn't "practical"? Do you have a picture of Stalin above your bed? The fact remains that alcohol is something that a lot of people enjoy and drink responsibly. They'll drink with good food, they'll drink with friends, they'll get a bit tipsy but who the hell cares since being tipsy is fun. As long as you don't drink excessively, you are fine. As long as you don't drink and drive, others are also fine. So who the hell are you to say others shouldn't drink? Because stupid people won't be fine? Is that really good enough to ban something? That's some really crazy talk right there, you should be careful. ^ This exact reasoning is pretty much applicable to firearms as well. Banning something on the grounds that stupid people might cause problems is NEVER a good thing to do. E: Also disregarding the usage of guns for hunting, sport shooting, protection and pest control is incredibly arrogant. You don't care about hunting or sport shooting, so you should prevent others from having those interests. Screw you, that's terribly arrogant. You also live in a safe, European urban area, so screw the need to shoot at dangerous animals, right? Or intruders for that matter. People are using their own, limited, views as a reason to ban firearms. It's incredible how narrow-minded some people can be. Good. Now explain me why you define stalinist every single country who bans drugs. Also if alcohol caused problems only to those who used them your reasoning would be correct but we both know it is not the case. What if i am just walking around and a drunk guy drives over me? I do drink but i would be willing to sacrify this freedom of mine so that stupid people who abuse alcohol will not be able to hurt anyone (it is kinda impossible to prevent people from drinking as i said in a previous post. I am merely stating he reasons you should ban alcohol). On a side note tone down a bit the hatred. Don't compare me to criminals and immature edgy stuff like that. But that is edgy. People who harbor such views give me goosebumps and it's these kinds of ideas that make me lose faith in humanity. I do not want to be micromanaged by a government telling me what's good and what's not. I think that I'm smart enough to figure that out by myself. I know that abusing alcohol is dangerous to both me and others. So I'm not going to abuse it. Telling me not to drink for those reasons is basically telling me that I'm an idiot with no sense of responsibility. That, to me, would be disgusting. I would rather die than live a life where I am not responsible for my actions. Luckily, most governments do not harbor such dangerous views. Drugs is a different matter in that they're much more addictive. Yes, so is alcohol, yet much less so. You can drink responsibly without problem. You can't do cocaine or heroine "casually". That is serious shit that will consume your life, it makes sense to ban that. Alcohol does not fit that category and frankly, neither do firearms. Nonetheless, this does a good job at explaining why I feel a blanket ban on firearms is bad. I feel bad, to be perfectly frank, that Europeans let themselves get trod on in such a way by governments. Then again, most Europeans tend to not care about things like responsibility, which I suppose is a cultural choice. You was doing well till you said "most Europeans tend to not care about things like responsibility, which I suppose is a cultural choice" Sigh. Can't believe you just equated drinking alcohol responsibly with American gun laws, and that somehow having a more restrictive american gun control is to not care about responsibility as an european culture because European culture totally restricts the consumption and buying of alcohol right? That's not what he said at all. He said Europeans don't care about responsibility because they're fine with the government not trusting them with guns, even if they happen to be model citizens. He doesn't like that Europeans tend to trust their governments more than the common man. I personally think its silly to trust a government more than the common man. The government is elected by, and made up of common people, they aren't angels. The government is limited by the fact that it answers to the people in general. What limits the common person? Nothing. The common person is an incredibly selfish, lazy, arrogant, irrational moron. Why should I trust some random person being allowed to have any kind of gun? Nonetheless, this does a good job at explaining why I feel a blanket ban on firearms is bad. I feel bad, to be perfectly frank, that Europeans let themselves get trod on in such a way by governments. Then again, most Europeans tend to not care about things like responsibility, which I suppose is a cultural choice. This kind of statement just makes you look like such a pathetic tool. American culture isn't about responsibility at all. I don't know what kind of ridiculous right-wing blogs you're reading, but you should try to broaden your horizons. They aren't a hivemind, but they seem pretty happy with the government being involved in their everyday lives constantly.
And to get guns in Europe, depending on the country, you have to abide by mountains of laws, and often cannot own certain types no matter how much paperwork you do. They may as well all be banned in places like the UK, you're limited so strictly in what you can and cannot own. European gun laws are like California's, only somehow even more strict and spanning a continent. Start listing all the freedoms that we supposedly enjoy in America that Europeans don't. I'll give you two: Guns Hate speech Got any other ones? If you consider the common person as lazy, selfish, arrogant and whatnot, you have a very poor view of society. That's an extremely cynical way of viewing things. The law also acts as a "limit" to the common man, as far as I know? The government does not answer to people either. You're a fool if you believe that. Go tell someone in the USSR back then, in North Korea right now or in Germany during the Nazi party's reign. Governments do not answer to people, unless we're talking about a full-out rebellion. I'm not saying governments are bad, anarchy is good. However, I'm sufficiently aware of things to know that I barely have any influence on what the government does. As of right now, I'm very angry at the entire French political system. From left to right, there isn't a single French political party that truly represents my views. What exactly can I do? The answer is nothing. I can however say that the French government at very least respects basic human rights, something which I can be thankful for. This isn't the case in a lot of countries. Also, yeah I don't know why Cannabis is banned. No, I don't know anything about cocaine. I have never been interested in trying it. Perhaps it can be casually done, I doubt that though. Not interested in trying; the same way I'm not interested in smoking even if that is legal. I call my own shots, I'm not going to do something just because the law allows me to. What? A democratic government answers to people. Comparing USA to North Korea, Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union is absurd.
Ridiculous. Of course they are comparable and they should even be compared. Nazi Germany came to power through a democratic vote. In Europe at the moment, extremist parties are on the rise. If you are afraid of comparing an occidental government from the oppressive ones in history, you're only making it easier for an oppressive one to take root.
Democratic governments are the governments that give people the most leverage / easiest way to enter the government. That much is true. Democratic governments also tend to respect human rights. In this way, it's true that democratic governments tend to the "best" kind of government. I completely agree with this. However, the common citizen is an ant to any government. You could have 5 people who are immensely discontent with a government's actions, or you could have 1 million. If you're a minority, you will not be heard. Or, you'll be heard and then simply ignored.
+ Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLpQ57u3Grk to continue this tangent, see this video. can you believe that the people at the head of the government can really be trusted when they act like this? the french government is at the head of one of the countries with nuclear war-heads, yet you see politicians acting like children when debating laws? can you really trust these people more than you can trust actual citizens? no, not really
This is kind of a tangent so maybe we should come back to firearms, however I think it's still relevant to discuss the merits of democracy and the actual amount of "freedom" a citizen under a democratic government has. I am someone who believes that everyone has merit, some more or less. Hence, everyone has the right to act responsibly, in turn that means that people should have the right to commit acts which may have consequences to them. As long as the consequences of your acts to not (in)directly affect others, you should retain the right to commit them. From this, you get people who act responsibly.
It's like telling a kid not to go for a bicycle ride since traffic can be dangerous. It's better to tell the kid to go for his bike ride while being careful of his surroundings: being aware of cars, respecting traffic lights, etc. This analogy is a stretch, but perhaps it gives you an idea of why I believe the right to bear arms should not be banned.
|
On September 03 2014 01:15 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2014 00:59 Millitron wrote:On September 02 2014 23:14 writer22816 wrote:On September 02 2014 22:33 Incognoto wrote:On September 02 2014 10:30 Stratos_speAr wrote:On September 02 2014 05:25 Millitron wrote:On September 02 2014 05:21 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On September 02 2014 05:04 Incognoto wrote:On September 02 2014 03:44 Karpfen wrote:On August 31 2014 22:36 Incognoto wrote: [quote]
That is some absolutely atrocious logic and I don't think I'm even going to waste time arguing against that.
Still, I'll bite. Why on earth would you ban something on the grounds that it isn't "practical"? Do you have a picture of Stalin above your bed?
The fact remains that alcohol is something that a lot of people enjoy and drink responsibly. They'll drink with good food, they'll drink with friends, they'll get a bit tipsy but who the hell cares since being tipsy is fun. As long as you don't drink excessively, you are fine. As long as you don't drink and drive, others are also fine. So who the hell are you to say others shouldn't drink? Because stupid people won't be fine? Is that really good enough to ban something? That's some really crazy talk right there, you should be careful.
^ This exact reasoning is pretty much applicable to firearms as well.
Banning something on the grounds that stupid people might cause problems is NEVER a good thing to do.
E: Also disregarding the usage of guns for hunting, sport shooting, protection and pest control is incredibly arrogant. You don't care about hunting or sport shooting, so you should prevent others from having those interests. Screw you, that's terribly arrogant. You also live in a safe, European urban area, so screw the need to shoot at dangerous animals, right? Or intruders for that matter. People are using their own, limited, views as a reason to ban firearms. It's incredible how narrow-minded some people can be. Good. Now explain me why you define stalinist every single country who bans drugs. Also if alcohol caused problems only to those who used them your reasoning would be correct but we both know it is not the case. What if i am just walking around and a drunk guy drives over me? I do drink but i would be willing to sacrify this freedom of mine so that stupid people who abuse alcohol will not be able to hurt anyone (it is kinda impossible to prevent people from drinking as i said in a previous post. I am merely stating he reasons you should ban alcohol). On a side note tone down a bit the hatred. Don't compare me to criminals and immature edgy stuff like that. But that is edgy. People who harbor such views give me goosebumps and it's these kinds of ideas that make me lose faith in humanity. I do not want to be micromanaged by a government telling me what's good and what's not. I think that I'm smart enough to figure that out by myself. I know that abusing alcohol is dangerous to both me and others. So I'm not going to abuse it. Telling me not to drink for those reasons is basically telling me that I'm an idiot with no sense of responsibility. That, to me, would be disgusting. I would rather die than live a life where I am not responsible for my actions. Luckily, most governments do not harbor such dangerous views. Drugs is a different matter in that they're much more addictive. Yes, so is alcohol, yet much less so. You can drink responsibly without problem. You can't do cocaine or heroine "casually". That is serious shit that will consume your life, it makes sense to ban that. Alcohol does not fit that category and frankly, neither do firearms. Nonetheless, this does a good job at explaining why I feel a blanket ban on firearms is bad. I feel bad, to be perfectly frank, that Europeans let themselves get trod on in such a way by governments. Then again, most Europeans tend to not care about things like responsibility, which I suppose is a cultural choice. You was doing well till you said "most Europeans tend to not care about things like responsibility, which I suppose is a cultural choice" Sigh. Can't believe you just equated drinking alcohol responsibly with American gun laws, and that somehow having a more restrictive american gun control is to not care about responsibility as an european culture because European culture totally restricts the consumption and buying of alcohol right? That's not what he said at all. He said Europeans don't care about responsibility because they're fine with the government not trusting them with guns, even if they happen to be model citizens. He doesn't like that Europeans tend to trust their governments more than the common man. I personally think its silly to trust a government more than the common man. The government is elected by, and made up of common people, they aren't angels. The government is limited by the fact that it answers to the people in general. What limits the common person? Nothing. The common person is an incredibly selfish, lazy, arrogant, irrational moron. Why should I trust some random person being allowed to have any kind of gun? Nonetheless, this does a good job at explaining why I feel a blanket ban on firearms is bad. I feel bad, to be perfectly frank, that Europeans let themselves get trod on in such a way by governments. Then again, most Europeans tend to not care about things like responsibility, which I suppose is a cultural choice. This kind of statement just makes you look like such a pathetic tool. American culture isn't about responsibility at all. I don't know what kind of ridiculous right-wing blogs you're reading, but you should try to broaden your horizons. They aren't a hivemind, but they seem pretty happy with the government being involved in their everyday lives constantly.
And to get guns in Europe, depending on the country, you have to abide by mountains of laws, and often cannot own certain types no matter how much paperwork you do. They may as well all be banned in places like the UK, you're limited so strictly in what you can and cannot own. European gun laws are like California's, only somehow even more strict and spanning a continent. Start listing all the freedoms that we supposedly enjoy in America that Europeans don't. I'll give you two: Guns Hate speech Got any other ones? If you consider the common person as lazy, selfish, arrogant and whatnot, you have a very poor view of society. That's an extremely cynical way of viewing things. The law also acts as a "limit" to the common man, as far as I know? The government does not answer to people either. You're a fool if you believe that. Go tell someone in the USSR back then, in North Korea right now or in Germany during the Nazi party's reign. Governments do not answer to people, unless we're talking about a full-out rebellion. I'm not saying governments are bad, anarchy is good. However, I'm sufficiently aware of things to know that I barely have any influence on what the government does. As of right now, I'm very angry at the entire French political system. From left to right, there isn't a single French political party that truly represents my views. What exactly can I do? The answer is nothing. I can however say that the French government at very least respects basic human rights, something which I can be thankful for. This isn't the case in a lot of countries. Also, yeah I don't know why Cannabis is banned. No, I don't know anything about cocaine. I have never been interested in trying it. Perhaps it can be casually done, I doubt that though. Not interested in trying; the same way I'm not interested in smoking even if that is legal. I call my own shots, I'm not going to do something just because the law allows me to. What? A democratic government answers to people. Comparing USA to North Korea, Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union is absurd. I would argue two things. First, we don't have a true democracy. Both parties do the exact same things when it comes to major issues. Democrats and Republicans both love the banks and the Federal Reserve. They both are interventionist when it comes to foreign relations. They will both screw you over if they think they can get away with it. Second, with our media, the people rarely get fair, balanced, and informative news. It's all about conflict for the media, because conflict gets the ratings. They don't care about whatever issue is being discussed, they just talk about how this or that affects so-and-so's campaign. So even if we did have a better functioning party system, it would still not be an effective democracy, because the people have no information. First, television news has never been that great. Second, both parties are now horribly corrupt because of technical issues with our democracy. Saying that this is impossible to fix is fatalistic bullshit. We've dealt with corruption before. Look up how we passed the 17th Amendment. Third, that issue is mostly at the federal level. It doesn't really apply to local police forces, state governments, and such like that. Fourth, the corporate media doesn't have separation between editorial and business aspects, so it always tends to support corporatist propaganda. The media does love being "neutral" but simply refuses to be objective. CNN is probably the most ridiculous when it comes to worshipping neutrality. Lastly, support Wolf-PAC. I never said its impossible to fix. I certainly don't see a way to fix it, but I'm not about to think that just because I can't fix it no one could.
I think my complaints still apply at the state level not just the Federal level, but I'm in NY, so I guess my perspective might be a little biased. For instance both major candidates for our upcoming gubernatorial election either are facing or have faced racketeering and corruption charges. Forgive me if I don't have a rosy view of the government.
|
Well, incognoto, "don't ban guns" does not imply that you think guns should be unregulated or uncontrolled. So please give some more details to your position. At the moment, the corruption of our Congress can't even do the basic gun control that the people desire because the NRA has political power.
|
Yea it definitely applies to governors because of their prominence. However state representatives and state senators are usually pretty normal shmoes.
|
On September 03 2014 01:25 DoubleReed wrote: Well, incognoto, "don't ban guns" does not imply that you think guns should be unregulated or uncontrolled. So please give some more details to your position. At the moment, the corruption of our Congress can't even do the basic gun control that the people desire because the NRA has political power.
For sure guns should be regulated and controlled. I completely agree with that. I don't think however there should be a blanket ban. My arguments in this thread tend to be really broad and in depth.
I can't argue about how guns should be regulated and controlled since I'm not up to scratch on that issue. Regulation should be there but not excessive. I can't say more than that, unfortunately. However I've been reading the posts in this threads from American people to give myself an idea.
|
Just an idea, but why not control guns with credit score? If you have an excellent credit score, that would qualify you for a gun license.
|
On September 03 2014 01:25 DoubleReed wrote: Well, incognoto, "don't ban guns" does not imply that you think guns should be unregulated or uncontrolled. So please give some more details to your position. At the moment, the corruption of our Congress can't even do the basic gun control that the people desire because the NRA has political power. You need to remember that just because the people desire something doesn't mean its right or smart. Most people who are for the kinds of gun control you're talking about, like assault weapons bans, magazine limits, and banned features get all their information about guns from Hollywood. i.e. if a gun is black, that means it's fully automatic, shoots a million rounds a minute, and will shoot through 10 bulletproof vests. Having people decide on legislation they know nothing about is a bad idea. It's like when congress technically banned the world wide web.
I can't seem to find the article now, but the law banned transferring child pornography in any encoding via the internet. This seems reasonable, but the problem is, you can turn any image into any other image if you use the right encoding. So any image at all on the internet could secretly be CP, meaning the entire internet was illegal.
On September 03 2014 01:42 Advantageous wrote: Just an idea, but why not control guns with credit score? If you have an excellent credit score, that would qualify you for a gun license. Because poor people have rights too. The original gun control laws were basically written by the Ku Klux Klan to keep poor blacks unarmed so they could more easily be oppressed.
|
On September 02 2014 12:55 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2014 12:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 02 2014 12:00 Millitron wrote:On September 02 2014 11:45 DoubleReed wrote:On September 02 2014 11:25 Wegandi wrote: ITT: people who think some people calling themselves Government decreeing the banishment of some vice or so-called dangerous substance/item actually means that it will no longer exist. I mean, Prohibition taught us nothing I suppose. The whole point of laws (e.g. Justice) is not as a means in so-called prevention, but as a means to provide consequences to a wrong done to person / property. So many logical fallacies as evident by the poster Karpfen. What does it matter if someone had alcohol in their system? That's not the 'wrong'. The fact that the person violated your person or property is the wrong.
I guess that is what we get for society turning away from Classical Liberal maxims, so now people instead insert whatever Puritanism fits their fancy. For all the so called waxing and waning against religion on these forums, so many people parrot their same idiotic vices are crimes, morality must be legislated and foisted upon everyone, freedom means you only acting in a manner I approve of, etc. etc.
What makes one human (those calling themselves Government or police) any superior to you, me, or any other human being? Oh, but they're superior to us peons, so they can walk around with guns, have the capacity to kill hundreds of thousands at a press of a button, and as Voltaire extolled - murder with the sound of trumpets and ideology. Yeah, but it's those common folk with the guns that are the problem! What makes you think that anyone here favors militarizing the police? And of course police are for prevention. They're supposed to serve the public interest and descalate situations and such like that. What the hell are you talking about? Of course laws are for prevention. Seatbelt laws, for instance? Also, I find you ridiculous. Even the majority of NRA members favor federal background checks and a whole host of gun control laws. You're taking an extremist position. The police have no duty to protect anyone or prevent anything. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_ColumbiaAnybody could be an NRA member, all it takes is a membership fee. Diane Feinstein, queen of gun control, could be an NRA member if she wanted. Yeah anyone can, not to many anti gun members though... Practically everyone agrees there needs to be more background checks. You're looking at the people directly/indirectly benefiting from not having those background checks and total wackos (often one in the same) that think more background checks would be bad. I understand the cost prohibitive nature for non-dealers and the less necessary aspect for familial transfers, but people should not be able to sell hundreds/thousands of guns to people without having to run background checks. It's just dumb for one, and it is just begging for criminals to take advantage (and get away with it for years). I really don't give much weight to the privacy concerns, particularly in the public world we live in. Background checks are pass/fail if you get surprised by failing a background check you probably have bigger problems than the person behind the counter knowing you failed. It doesn't really matter how much weight you give privacy concerns. The 4th Amendment is still here. And I already explained how much random BS can make you fail a background check. You could easily be a model citizen and fail a background check anyways.
My point on privacy was just that with your name and address/phone number people can do a non-firearm related background check and get way more personal information than would be known by someone running you for a gun purchase. So the argument just doesn't make sense.
Also what type of model citizens did you say would/could fail a background check?
|
On September 03 2014 01:55 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2014 12:55 Millitron wrote:On September 02 2014 12:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 02 2014 12:00 Millitron wrote:On September 02 2014 11:45 DoubleReed wrote:On September 02 2014 11:25 Wegandi wrote: ITT: people who think some people calling themselves Government decreeing the banishment of some vice or so-called dangerous substance/item actually means that it will no longer exist. I mean, Prohibition taught us nothing I suppose. The whole point of laws (e.g. Justice) is not as a means in so-called prevention, but as a means to provide consequences to a wrong done to person / property. So many logical fallacies as evident by the poster Karpfen. What does it matter if someone had alcohol in their system? That's not the 'wrong'. The fact that the person violated your person or property is the wrong.
I guess that is what we get for society turning away from Classical Liberal maxims, so now people instead insert whatever Puritanism fits their fancy. For all the so called waxing and waning against religion on these forums, so many people parrot their same idiotic vices are crimes, morality must be legislated and foisted upon everyone, freedom means you only acting in a manner I approve of, etc. etc.
What makes one human (those calling themselves Government or police) any superior to you, me, or any other human being? Oh, but they're superior to us peons, so they can walk around with guns, have the capacity to kill hundreds of thousands at a press of a button, and as Voltaire extolled - murder with the sound of trumpets and ideology. Yeah, but it's those common folk with the guns that are the problem! What makes you think that anyone here favors militarizing the police? And of course police are for prevention. They're supposed to serve the public interest and descalate situations and such like that. What the hell are you talking about? Of course laws are for prevention. Seatbelt laws, for instance? Also, I find you ridiculous. Even the majority of NRA members favor federal background checks and a whole host of gun control laws. You're taking an extremist position. The police have no duty to protect anyone or prevent anything. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_ColumbiaAnybody could be an NRA member, all it takes is a membership fee. Diane Feinstein, queen of gun control, could be an NRA member if she wanted. Yeah anyone can, not to many anti gun members though... Practically everyone agrees there needs to be more background checks. You're looking at the people directly/indirectly benefiting from not having those background checks and total wackos (often one in the same) that think more background checks would be bad. I understand the cost prohibitive nature for non-dealers and the less necessary aspect for familial transfers, but people should not be able to sell hundreds/thousands of guns to people without having to run background checks. It's just dumb for one, and it is just begging for criminals to take advantage (and get away with it for years). I really don't give much weight to the privacy concerns, particularly in the public world we live in. Background checks are pass/fail if you get surprised by failing a background check you probably have bigger problems than the person behind the counter knowing you failed. It doesn't really matter how much weight you give privacy concerns. The 4th Amendment is still here. And I already explained how much random BS can make you fail a background check. You could easily be a model citizen and fail a background check anyways. My point on privacy was just that with your name and address/phone number people can do a non-firearm related background check and get way more personal information than would be known by someone running you for a gun purchase. So the argument just doesn't make sense. Also what type of model citizens did you say would/could fail a background check? If you've ever been diagnosed as depressed, even just temporarily or incorrectly, you will likely fail a background check. You have to go through mountains of paperwork to get it stricken from the record.
If you have a restraining order against you, you will fail a background check. This seems reasonable at first, but then you find out that they hand restraining orders out like sausage samples at a mall. You don't have to be a danger at all for someone to be able to get a restraining order against you.
|
On September 03 2014 02:00 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2014 01:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 02 2014 12:55 Millitron wrote:On September 02 2014 12:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 02 2014 12:00 Millitron wrote:On September 02 2014 11:45 DoubleReed wrote:On September 02 2014 11:25 Wegandi wrote: ITT: people who think some people calling themselves Government decreeing the banishment of some vice or so-called dangerous substance/item actually means that it will no longer exist. I mean, Prohibition taught us nothing I suppose. The whole point of laws (e.g. Justice) is not as a means in so-called prevention, but as a means to provide consequences to a wrong done to person / property. So many logical fallacies as evident by the poster Karpfen. What does it matter if someone had alcohol in their system? That's not the 'wrong'. The fact that the person violated your person or property is the wrong.
I guess that is what we get for society turning away from Classical Liberal maxims, so now people instead insert whatever Puritanism fits their fancy. For all the so called waxing and waning against religion on these forums, so many people parrot their same idiotic vices are crimes, morality must be legislated and foisted upon everyone, freedom means you only acting in a manner I approve of, etc. etc.
What makes one human (those calling themselves Government or police) any superior to you, me, or any other human being? Oh, but they're superior to us peons, so they can walk around with guns, have the capacity to kill hundreds of thousands at a press of a button, and as Voltaire extolled - murder with the sound of trumpets and ideology. Yeah, but it's those common folk with the guns that are the problem! What makes you think that anyone here favors militarizing the police? And of course police are for prevention. They're supposed to serve the public interest and descalate situations and such like that. What the hell are you talking about? Of course laws are for prevention. Seatbelt laws, for instance? Also, I find you ridiculous. Even the majority of NRA members favor federal background checks and a whole host of gun control laws. You're taking an extremist position. The police have no duty to protect anyone or prevent anything. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_ColumbiaAnybody could be an NRA member, all it takes is a membership fee. Diane Feinstein, queen of gun control, could be an NRA member if she wanted. Yeah anyone can, not to many anti gun members though... Practically everyone agrees there needs to be more background checks. You're looking at the people directly/indirectly benefiting from not having those background checks and total wackos (often one in the same) that think more background checks would be bad. I understand the cost prohibitive nature for non-dealers and the less necessary aspect for familial transfers, but people should not be able to sell hundreds/thousands of guns to people without having to run background checks. It's just dumb for one, and it is just begging for criminals to take advantage (and get away with it for years). I really don't give much weight to the privacy concerns, particularly in the public world we live in. Background checks are pass/fail if you get surprised by failing a background check you probably have bigger problems than the person behind the counter knowing you failed. It doesn't really matter how much weight you give privacy concerns. The 4th Amendment is still here. And I already explained how much random BS can make you fail a background check. You could easily be a model citizen and fail a background check anyways. My point on privacy was just that with your name and address/phone number people can do a non-firearm related background check and get way more personal information than would be known by someone running you for a gun purchase. So the argument just doesn't make sense. Also what type of model citizens did you say would/could fail a background check? If you've ever been diagnosed as depressed, even just temporarily or incorrectly, you will likely fail a background check. You have to go through mountains of paperwork to get it stricken from the record. If you have a restraining order against you, you will fail a background check. This seems reasonable at first, but then you find out that they hand restraining orders out like sausage samples at a mall. You don't have to be a danger at all for someone to be able to get a restraining order against you.
You think it's a good idea to let people with a history of depression obtain a gun?
|
On September 03 2014 02:05 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2014 02:00 Millitron wrote:On September 03 2014 01:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 02 2014 12:55 Millitron wrote:On September 02 2014 12:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 02 2014 12:00 Millitron wrote:On September 02 2014 11:45 DoubleReed wrote:On September 02 2014 11:25 Wegandi wrote: ITT: people who think some people calling themselves Government decreeing the banishment of some vice or so-called dangerous substance/item actually means that it will no longer exist. I mean, Prohibition taught us nothing I suppose. The whole point of laws (e.g. Justice) is not as a means in so-called prevention, but as a means to provide consequences to a wrong done to person / property. So many logical fallacies as evident by the poster Karpfen. What does it matter if someone had alcohol in their system? That's not the 'wrong'. The fact that the person violated your person or property is the wrong.
I guess that is what we get for society turning away from Classical Liberal maxims, so now people instead insert whatever Puritanism fits their fancy. For all the so called waxing and waning against religion on these forums, so many people parrot their same idiotic vices are crimes, morality must be legislated and foisted upon everyone, freedom means you only acting in a manner I approve of, etc. etc.
What makes one human (those calling themselves Government or police) any superior to you, me, or any other human being? Oh, but they're superior to us peons, so they can walk around with guns, have the capacity to kill hundreds of thousands at a press of a button, and as Voltaire extolled - murder with the sound of trumpets and ideology. Yeah, but it's those common folk with the guns that are the problem! What makes you think that anyone here favors militarizing the police? And of course police are for prevention. They're supposed to serve the public interest and descalate situations and such like that. What the hell are you talking about? Of course laws are for prevention. Seatbelt laws, for instance? Also, I find you ridiculous. Even the majority of NRA members favor federal background checks and a whole host of gun control laws. You're taking an extremist position. The police have no duty to protect anyone or prevent anything. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_ColumbiaAnybody could be an NRA member, all it takes is a membership fee. Diane Feinstein, queen of gun control, could be an NRA member if she wanted. Yeah anyone can, not to many anti gun members though... Practically everyone agrees there needs to be more background checks. You're looking at the people directly/indirectly benefiting from not having those background checks and total wackos (often one in the same) that think more background checks would be bad. I understand the cost prohibitive nature for non-dealers and the less necessary aspect for familial transfers, but people should not be able to sell hundreds/thousands of guns to people without having to run background checks. It's just dumb for one, and it is just begging for criminals to take advantage (and get away with it for years). I really don't give much weight to the privacy concerns, particularly in the public world we live in. Background checks are pass/fail if you get surprised by failing a background check you probably have bigger problems than the person behind the counter knowing you failed. It doesn't really matter how much weight you give privacy concerns. The 4th Amendment is still here. And I already explained how much random BS can make you fail a background check. You could easily be a model citizen and fail a background check anyways. My point on privacy was just that with your name and address/phone number people can do a non-firearm related background check and get way more personal information than would be known by someone running you for a gun purchase. So the argument just doesn't make sense. Also what type of model citizens did you say would/could fail a background check? If you've ever been diagnosed as depressed, even just temporarily or incorrectly, you will likely fail a background check. You have to go through mountains of paperwork to get it stricken from the record. If you have a restraining order against you, you will fail a background check. This seems reasonable at first, but then you find out that they hand restraining orders out like sausage samples at a mall. You don't have to be a danger at all for someone to be able to get a restraining order against you. You think it's a good idea to let people with a history of depression obtain a gun? If they are not a danger to themselves or others, sure. Like I said, you can have one doctor say you're depressed, get a bunch of second opinions that say otherwise, and still fail the background check years later because that first doctor reported you to the NICS background check system.
|
Yea but that's just some bureaucratic technology that you can change with policy.
But you're right depressed people never harm themselves.
|
On September 03 2014 02:13 DoubleReed wrote: Yea but that's just some bureaucratic technology that you can change with policy.
But you're right depressed people never harm themselves. You can be completely cured, and fail the background check for the same reasons I already stated.
|
Yea because you have a history of depression and suicide is a primary use for guns. That's not ridiculous, that's pragmatic.
|
Depression is well known as a condition that can relapse. Are you unaware of this?
|
On September 03 2014 02:00 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2014 01:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 02 2014 12:55 Millitron wrote:On September 02 2014 12:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 02 2014 12:00 Millitron wrote:On September 02 2014 11:45 DoubleReed wrote:On September 02 2014 11:25 Wegandi wrote: ITT: people who think some people calling themselves Government decreeing the banishment of some vice or so-called dangerous substance/item actually means that it will no longer exist. I mean, Prohibition taught us nothing I suppose. The whole point of laws (e.g. Justice) is not as a means in so-called prevention, but as a means to provide consequences to a wrong done to person / property. So many logical fallacies as evident by the poster Karpfen. What does it matter if someone had alcohol in their system? That's not the 'wrong'. The fact that the person violated your person or property is the wrong.
I guess that is what we get for society turning away from Classical Liberal maxims, so now people instead insert whatever Puritanism fits their fancy. For all the so called waxing and waning against religion on these forums, so many people parrot their same idiotic vices are crimes, morality must be legislated and foisted upon everyone, freedom means you only acting in a manner I approve of, etc. etc.
What makes one human (those calling themselves Government or police) any superior to you, me, or any other human being? Oh, but they're superior to us peons, so they can walk around with guns, have the capacity to kill hundreds of thousands at a press of a button, and as Voltaire extolled - murder with the sound of trumpets and ideology. Yeah, but it's those common folk with the guns that are the problem! What makes you think that anyone here favors militarizing the police? And of course police are for prevention. They're supposed to serve the public interest and descalate situations and such like that. What the hell are you talking about? Of course laws are for prevention. Seatbelt laws, for instance? Also, I find you ridiculous. Even the majority of NRA members favor federal background checks and a whole host of gun control laws. You're taking an extremist position. The police have no duty to protect anyone or prevent anything. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_ColumbiaAnybody could be an NRA member, all it takes is a membership fee. Diane Feinstein, queen of gun control, could be an NRA member if she wanted. Yeah anyone can, not to many anti gun members though... Practically everyone agrees there needs to be more background checks. You're looking at the people directly/indirectly benefiting from not having those background checks and total wackos (often one in the same) that think more background checks would be bad. I understand the cost prohibitive nature for non-dealers and the less necessary aspect for familial transfers, but people should not be able to sell hundreds/thousands of guns to people without having to run background checks. It's just dumb for one, and it is just begging for criminals to take advantage (and get away with it for years). I really don't give much weight to the privacy concerns, particularly in the public world we live in. Background checks are pass/fail if you get surprised by failing a background check you probably have bigger problems than the person behind the counter knowing you failed. It doesn't really matter how much weight you give privacy concerns. The 4th Amendment is still here. And I already explained how much random BS can make you fail a background check. You could easily be a model citizen and fail a background check anyways. My point on privacy was just that with your name and address/phone number people can do a non-firearm related background check and get way more personal information than would be known by someone running you for a gun purchase. So the argument just doesn't make sense. Also what type of model citizens did you say would/could fail a background check? If you've ever been diagnosed as depressed, even just temporarily or incorrectly, you will likely fail a background check. You have to go through mountains of paperwork to get it stricken from the record. If you have a restraining order against you, you will fail a background check. This seems reasonable at first, but then you find out that they hand restraining orders out like sausage samples at a mall. You don't have to be a danger at all for someone to be able to get a restraining order against you.
Based on your response I presume you accept the privacy point.
Well considering the people most likely to die from a gun are the ones who buy it and shoot themselves. I don't think handing someone who is already at an increased risk for suicide a gun is in anyone's best interest.
The federal law says one must be " adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution"
Such adjudications or commitments by federal agencies and departments are “deemed not to have occurred” for purposes of the federal prohibition against purchase or possession of firearms if: ... The adjudication or commitment was based solely on a medical finding of disability without a hearing before a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority, and the person has not otherwise been adjudicated a mental defective;
There are different types of restraining orders and not all of them will result in failing a background check also they don't last forever. If someone got a restraining order that would prevent you from purchasing a firearm it's probably better you go ahead and wait the (typically) few weeks before buying it.
It sounds as though you are crafting this reasoning either from your imagination or from some personal experience but it doesn't reflect much of the reality.
Your examples might not be total jerks but you didn't really give me a model citizen getting rejected scenario.
I think your tiny violin for the unknown few wrongfully adjudicated or 'restrained' from being able to purchase guns from a place where they need a background check (still capable of purchasing them from plenty of places) has gone flat.
|
On September 03 2014 01:32 Incognoto wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2014 01:25 DoubleReed wrote: Well, incognoto, "don't ban guns" does not imply that you think guns should be unregulated or uncontrolled. So please give some more details to your position. At the moment, the corruption of our Congress can't even do the basic gun control that the people desire because the NRA has political power. For sure guns should be regulated and controlled. I completely agree with that. I don't think however there should be a blanket ban. My arguments in this thread tend to be really broad and in depth. I can't argue about how guns should be regulated and controlled since I'm not up to scratch on that issue. Regulation should be there but not excessive. I can't say more than that, unfortunately. However I've been reading the posts in this threads from American people to give myself an idea.
Guns should be regulated, but I don't feel our government disarming the people is the way to do it. I wish there was a better 3rd party non corrupt that could regulate guns and give out more information and education on proper use of a weapon that was more mainstream.
Most violence and murders in the world are done by illegally obtained weapons. Disarming the public and more gun laws only give more money to the Cartels and gangs, just like drugs and everything else on the black market.
Average gun owner has an education about the weapons they own and live life with out any accidents or killing anyone.
|
|
|
|