223586 Bullies, 4063 online  
  • Register
Our Sponsors:

Results 91 to 100 of 135
Page 10 of 14 FirstFirst ... 678910 11121314 LastLast
Sponsored Links Spacer Image
  1. jubei33 is offline
    jubei33's Avatar

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    the H-bomb
    Posts
    1,606

    Posted On:
    5/02/2006 8:17pm


     Style: Boxing, Solar Ray Attack

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Don Gwinn
    An American generally believes, for example, that the right of free speech is the right of an individual, which cannot be voted away even by a majority of citizens. In France, in England, in Canada, that restriction on collective power does not exist, and no matter how much they may talk acout cherishing freedom of speech, the fact remains that you can be put in jail for having the wrong opinion about racism, history, or even the French national anthem in those nations.

    Simply put, I don't believe that the fact that a lot of people want to steal my property makes it legitimate for them to do so, when a small number of people could not.

    Before anyone asks, yes, I do apply this consistently. No, I don't think you should be put in jail for smoking dope.
    Good post. Recently, there was a holocaust revisionist/dinner party historian that was placed in jail in europe for writing books concerning the holocaust (and how it didn't happen). I forgot his name; its not worth remembering anyway....

    By the way, have you guys heard about mexicos new drug policy? legaliation of small quantities of all drugs. Fox is expected to sign it too.
    http://woodwardswhiskey.wordpress.com/

    He was punching him like the collective karmic debt he'd accrued was coming to collections, mostly on his face.
  2. BoardHitBack is offline

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    923

    Posted On:
    5/02/2006 8:57pm


     Style: Kyokushin

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by KageKaze
    IMO the US gave the citzens to ability and right to defend themselves. In America and other "advanced" countries you have the "you hit me so I going to sue you" or other work of the system ****. AKA reliance on the system.

    People that can defend themselves don't rely the system, they are self sufficent and understand no one this going to hold their hand. This doesn't replace the police, but they can't be everywhere.

    My safety is my concern.
    I agree that your safety is your concern. The police certainly can't be everywhere at once. When nasty **** happens it usually happens when they are not- its not like people want to get caught. A gun will allow you defend yourself against some criminals or assailents- the dumb ones that didn't think "It's possible he has a gun, I should find a way to do this **** in a such a way he has no opportunity to shoot me". If someone seriously wants to make you unsafe they will find a way to do it. You will never be self-sufficient or completely safe. Guns don't take away a determined, intelligent person's ability to ruin your ****.

    That being said, the ratio of stupidity to smarts in humans works in favour of those carrying.
    He who attains his ideal by that very fact transcends it- Nietzsche

    I like my Te like I like my tea- from Fujian province and without any bullshit in it. Oh, and green. And scented with jasmine blossoms...

    Quote Originally Posted by A Better American Than You
    In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot.
  3. BoardHitBack is offline

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    923

    Posted On:
    5/02/2006 9:11pm


     Style: Kyokushin

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by jubei33
    Good post. Recently, there was a holocaust revisionist/dinner party historian that was placed in jail in europe for writing books concerning the holocaust (and how it didn't happen). I forgot his name; its not worth remembering anyway....
    I think it is David Irving you are refering to. He was not arrested for writing books that denied the Holocaust. His historical revisionism concerning the Holocaust was the reason Austria and Germany (amongst others) barred him from entering, declaring Irving persona non grata. Afterwards he went to Austria, essentially to take the piss , and broke the law by doing so. He was tried for that crime and imprisioned for 2 years. No one likes having their legal system openly mocked, and judges tend to be the most sensitive people about that kind of thing.
    He who attains his ideal by that very fact transcends it- Nietzsche

    I like my Te like I like my tea- from Fujian province and without any bullshit in it. Oh, and green. And scented with jasmine blossoms...

    Quote Originally Posted by A Better American Than You
    In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot.
  4. danno is offline
    danno's Avatar

    Light Heavyweight

    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Shoalhaven, Australia
    Posts
    3,155

    Posted On:
    5/03/2006 12:47am

    supporting member
     Style: BJJ

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Don Gwinn
    There are deeper differences than simply deciding whether one needs a weapon or not.
    like i've been saying, i think the main thing we are arguing over is a difference in values and culture. it's more than just a gun debate. we have many laws and ways of running government and business which are very different to how things are done in america. i'm not at all surprised that some of my beliefs clash with yours.

    this thread should perhaps be in the general BS section.

    Quote Originally Posted by Don Gwinn
    Danno brought up the point that Australia is a democracy. It seems to be a purer form of democracy than the United States. Both are representative in form. The United States is considered a republic, however. In a republic, there are rights of the individual which cannot simply be voted away by a majority. Americans do not wish, by and large, to be subject to what we call "the tyranny of the majority."

    An American generally believes, for example, that the right of free speech is the right of an individual, which cannot be voted away even by a majority of citizens. In France, in England, in Canada, that restriction on collective power does not exist, and no matter how much they may talk acout cherishing freedom of speech, the fact remains that you can be put in jail for having the wrong opinion about racism, history, or even the French national anthem in those nations.
    but you do have laws in america which stop individuals from doing whatever the hell they want. drug laws, for example. or when an adult has sex with someone under age, they are breaking the law whether or not both people were consenting.

    wasn't there something introduced in the US called the patriot act? did that get passed? and what exactly does it mean?

    Quote Originally Posted by Don Gwinn
    The right to keep and bear arms falls into this category.
    but you see, we don't consider owning guns a "human right". we go to great lengths to make sure everyone in our country has food and shelter because we believe that it is their right as human beings to have these things. we don't see guns that way.

    Quote Originally Posted by Don Gwinn
    It was guaranteed to individuals in our Constitution for a reason. The founders of this nation did not believe that even a majority of citizens have the right to oppress the minority.
    do you mean because they have guns they cannot be oppressed?

    Quote Originally Posted by Don Gwinn
    Before anyone asks, yes, I do apply this consistently. No, I don't think you should be put in jail for smoking dope.
    well, i'm not going to call you a hypocrite.


    i was having a chat with my father today and i asked him what he thought of aussie gun laws.

    i'll first try to quickly describe his background... he was born in britain and ended up becoming a police officer. he was also a good boxer. eventually he moved to australia and got to about number 10 in aus pro boxing and again got a job as a police officer. he's seen the worst that our society has to offer. he once shot a man (who ended up surviving), and has been in countless physical confrontations, a number of which had weapons involved. one of his kidneys doesn't work because it was smashed with a pole in a fight with a couple of blokes.

    he's also an excellent marksman. once got 90-something head shots hunting rabbits one night.

    politically he's very conservative and leans pretty far to the right. once he even voted for One Nation, the closest aus has come to having a nazi party. so we have arguments from time to time but otherwise get on surprisingly well.

    so anyway i asked him what he thought of our guns laws. he said "nobody needs guns except sportsmen and those who need it for their job." he believes that most citizens don't need guns, and are better off without them. he thinks that most police officers don't even need guns.

    i asked him what he thought of american guns laws, and he said "well, so many people over there have guns. banning them just wouldn't work."

    below the link to the armory it says "hippy BS". but here i don't think it's really associated with hippies... the belief in strict gun laws is something that stretches across all political persuasions here and has little to do with the left or right.
  5. Don Gwinn is offline
    Don Gwinn's Avatar

    BJJ wins again!

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Virden, IL
    Posts
    3,569

    Posted On:
    5/04/2006 8:40pm

    supporting member
     Style: Guns

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    You'll find that left and right don't mean much on a lot of issues in a lot of places. Here in the United States, it's often the "right wing" and "conservative" politicians who stab us in the back when it comes to firearms. Many of them are on our side most of the time, yes, and usually more reliably than the lefties, but that's not really saying much.
    Many of the right wing politicians simply vote pro-gun because the people who give them money and time demand it. They don't believe in it (or much of anything, really) on a personal level. Even if they have personal convictions, they're just as likely to be one-issue zealots on abortion or gay marriage or some other "right wing Christian" issue.

    The icon of the "Right Wing" in the U.S. is Ronald Reagan. He did some laudable things and some not so laudable. As Governor of one of our most populous and influential states, California, he pushed through onerous laws on transporting and carrying guns without CCW permits which are still in effect today, purely as a response to the Black Panther movement, which had made a habit of carrying long arms in public to assert their status as freemen.

    but you do have laws in america which stop individuals from doing whatever the hell they want. drug laws, for example. or when an adult has sex with someone under age, they are breaking the law whether or not both people were consenting.
    Drug laws, in my opinion, actually contradict our Constitution, at least at the Federal level. The federal drug laws are far beyond the power of Congress; they are justified under what we call the "interstate commerce clause" of the Constitution, but that clause gives Congress the right to regulate, naturally enough, matters relating to interstate commerce. Long ago the Supreme Court decided that just about anything involving buying, selling, making, growing, or possessing any product at all is "interstate commerce," no matter how local.
    The Supreme Court literally declared that growing a pot plant in your basement and smoking the same pot in your living room is an activity "substantially affecting interstate commerce." Ridiculous, but the law of the land for now.

    Your example of what we call statutory rape is something else, actually. Here, minors are not allowed to sign binding contracts, get married without their parents' consent, or do a whole host of other things, because they are considered incapable of giving informed consent. As far as the law is concerned, there is no such thing as a case where a minor has consented to sex. If you're a minor, you cannot give what the law considers consent, period. You might as well claim that a hole in the fence gave you consent as a 12-year old girl.
    On the other hand, many of our states have silly sex laws that do ban all kinds of consensual sex.

    I'm not saying that the United States is a Libertarian Utopia; we have lots of statists here, too, and a whole lot more apathetic yuppies who couldn't care less what happens to anybody as long as they can watch the game on their big-screen TV.

    but you see, we don't consider owning guns a "human right". we go to great lengths to make sure everyone in our country has food and shelter because we believe that it is their right as human beings to have these things. we don't see guns that way.
    Now, again, I can't claim to speak for all Americans or even most, but I see another fundamental difference here. There's no such thing as a "right to have" anything at all, in my mind. You have a right not to have your food, your shelter or your firearm for that matter taken away or destroyed by some other human being, but anyone who claims to be able to guarantee you a right to have something you can't get for yourself is scamming you. What they really mean is that they think it would be really nice for you to have it. The really sincere ones mean that they would like to give it to you if you can't get it for yourself (and some even if you simply won't be bothered to get it for yourself) but none of those things constitutes a right to have that thing.
    Take food. You have the right to create or trade for food for yourself. You do not have a right to have food if you can't or won't do one of those things, because what human being could possibly guarantee such a right? How will they enforce it, other than to give you food no matter what happens? That works until they're the ones with no food.

    I don't have a right to have a gun. I have a right not to have my ownership interfered with by others because my gun is my property. It does not belong to the collective mass of humanity and therefore they have no right to take it for themselves by force without my consent.

    do you mean because they have guns they cannot be oppressed?
    No, guns are not magic talismans and do not guarantee freedom.
    I was not speaking of guns but of our Constitution; guns are simply the specific issue in this case. Our founders did not wish the majority to tyrannize the minority and, although they knew they could not set up a society in which any group was completely safe from oppression, they refused to set up a government which encouraged such oppression, which was how they (and I) saw a pure democracy. That's the reason why the Bill of Rights are referred to individually as amendments--they were the first ten amendments made to our Constitution because, without a bill of individual rights not subject to the whims of the public or the Congress, several states would have refused to ratify the Constitution in the first place!


    The USA PATRIOT Act (how's that for a fun name?) was passed and then extended this year. The bulk of it was boring and uncontroversial stuff, mostly cleaning up the cooperation issues between our police and intelligence agencies. We had several agencies with similar missions (the FBI does many of the same things internally, albeit by different rules, that the the CIA does internationally, because the CIA is forbidden by charter to operate domestically) which were not talking or sharing information.

    However, there were some very controversial new powers added. For one thing, the FBI can now get a warrant from a judge which allows them to search your home or business in secret while you're gone, without presenting the warrant. This is a gross violation of our 4th Amendment. They do have to present the warrant, but they can wait up to 90 days after they search to do so. This bothers a lot of people. . . . we've had issues with police using blank warrants or no warrants to go fishing and harass people before, and this is one step closer to legalizing that behavior. Not good.

    The Patriot Act also forces libraries to give up personal information such as which books were checked out by which people. Today, this is supposed to mean that if you checked out Suicide Bombing for Dummies, the FBI can heroically swoop in before you blow up a kindergarten. In the future, who knows what they might want to track about your reading habits? And who knows how far down the line this kind of power might extend? You should be able to check out Mein Kampf and The Little Red Book if you want; it's nobody's damn business what you read or why.

    It lets the authorities send out what are called "National Security Letters" to all sorts of people demanding all sorts of information. I don't like it.


    This is the weakness of the Constitution. In the end, it's just a piece of paper. The most important parts of it are ideas that have to be defended and enforced by men to matter at all. If no one cares enough to stand up and be counted when people are taking these little bites out of our Republic, no paper law is going to stop them.
    *********************************************
  6. danno is offline
    danno's Avatar

    Light Heavyweight

    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Shoalhaven, Australia
    Posts
    3,155

    Posted On:
    5/04/2006 9:30pm

    supporting member
     Style: BJJ

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    excellent response don. i'll tell you what i think when i have time.
  7. danno is offline
    danno's Avatar

    Light Heavyweight

    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Shoalhaven, Australia
    Posts
    3,155

    Posted On:
    5/06/2006 1:03am

    supporting member
     Style: BJJ

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Don Gwinn
    Take food. You have the right to create or trade for food for yourself. You do not have a right to have food if you can't or won't do one of those things, because what human being could possibly guarantee such a right? How will they enforce it, other than to give you food no matter what happens? That works until they're the ones with no food.
    how i see it is that no one should be allowed to starve or go without shelter whatever the case. it can't be "enforced", but we can make an attempt to not allow these sorts of things to happen. it still ends up happening; if you go to sydney you might see the occasional homeless person. however, these people shouldn't be on the street because they can get money and housing from the government. there is generally some other problem which caused them to slip through the cracks, such as drug addiction.

    Quote Originally Posted by Don Gwinn
    Our founders did not wish the majority to tyrannize the minority and, although they knew they could not set up a society in which any group was completely safe from oppression, they refused to set up a government which encouraged such oppression, which was how they (and I) saw a pure democracy.
    i don't see gun and drug laws as oppression at all. i see them as wise decisions which benefit society. nobody i know says "tyranny" when referring to our laws.

    it's also illegal here to not wear a seatbelt. you can get pulled over by the police and fined for not wearing one or having a car with no seatbelts. is it the same over there or are you offended by this? ;)
    Last edited by danno; 5/06/2006 1:25am at .
  8. BoardHitBack is offline

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    923

    Posted On:
    5/06/2006 4:25am


     Style: Kyokushin

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by danno
    how i see it is that no one should be allowed to starve or go without shelter whatever the case. it can't be "enforced", but we can make an attempt to not allow these sorts of things to happen. it still ends up happening; if you go to sydney you might see the occasional homeless person. however, these people shouldn't be on the street because they can get money and housing from the government. there is generally some other problem which caused them to slip through the cracks, such as drug addiction.
    Have you ever been homeless? I have. Interestingly I didn't have drug problems. The state here has provisions to get people shelter etc. Its harder to take advantage of them than you would think- at least over here.

    Quote Originally Posted by danno
    i don't see gun and drug laws as oppression at all. i see them as wise decisions which benefit society. nobody i know says "tyranny" when referring to our laws.
    That doesn't mean those laws are not tyrannical. Further, which drugs are you talking about? Alcohol, caffenine and nicotine? Crack cocaine, heroin? LSD, Mushrooms? Pot? Tryptamines? Pheynlethamines? Salvia? Are you equivocating between all these things? They all do very different things and have different effects on humans. Only the first five drugs in this list are physically addictive and are also the ones in the list that necessarily cause physical damage to humans.

    Mountain climbing is pretty risky. As is boxing or driving a car. Should we outlaw those things to protect people from the dangers inherent in them?

    I'm also assuming that you believe that what is good for society is more important than individual freedom. (even tho I don't agree with your belief that gun/drug control laws are good for society) Why the national socialist position?

    Quote Originally Posted by danno
    it's also illegal here to not wear a seatbelt. you can get pulled over by the police and fined for not wearing one or having a car with no seatbelts. is it the same over there or are you offended by this? ;)
    We have the same law. i'm not offended by it because I would always wear one anyway. It's a stupid and anti-libertirian law tho IMO.
    Last edited by BoardHitBack; 5/06/2006 4:40am at .
    He who attains his ideal by that very fact transcends it- Nietzsche

    I like my Te like I like my tea- from Fujian province and without any bullshit in it. Oh, and green. And scented with jasmine blossoms...

    Quote Originally Posted by A Better American Than You
    In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot.
  9. danno is offline
    danno's Avatar

    Light Heavyweight

    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Shoalhaven, Australia
    Posts
    3,155

    Posted On:
    5/06/2006 5:03am

    supporting member
     Style: BJJ

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    i'll say it again, this thread should really be in general BS.

    Quote Originally Posted by BoardHitBack
    Have you ever been homeless? I have. Interestingly I didn't have drug problems. The state here has provisions to get people shelter etc. Its harder to take advantage of them than you would think- at least over here.
    i'm not suggesting that it's easy to just get back on your feet even when people are doing all they can to help you, or that drugs are th only reason people become homeless.

    Quote Originally Posted by BoardHitBack
    That doesn't mean those laws are not tyrannical. Further, which drugs are you talking about? Alcohol, caffenine and nicotine? Crack cocaine, heroin? LSD, Mushrooms? Pot? Tryptamines? Pheynlethamines? Salvia? Are you equivocating between all these things? They all do very different things and have different effects on humans. Only the first five drugs in this list are physically addictive and necessarily cause physical damage to humans.
    i'm really talking about uneccessary, life destroying drug habits rather than the drugs themselves... i mean, i'm all for medicinal marijuana. but banning certain drugs like heroin seems the only way to lesson the number of people ruining themselves.

    Quote Originally Posted by BoardHitBack
    Mountain climbing is pretty risky. As is boxing or driving a car. Should we outlaw those things to protect people from the dangers inherent in them?
    can you imagine what would happen if we banned cars? the ban of drugs and guns in aus has had no such effect!

    besides, if you want to shoot recreationally or hunt, you can do it here. you just need training and a license, but can't use rediculous weapons. you just don't need an AK47 to kill a pig.

    Quote Originally Posted by BoardHitBack
    I'm also assuming that you believe that what is good for society is more important than individual freedom. (even tho I don't agree with your belief that gun/drug control laws are good for society)
    i do believe in individual freedom! but we need to put limits on what is acceptable (i'm talking about what i want in my own country, not saying what others should do). this is what all laws are for - to keep things organised and civil. any law is a restriction of freedom.

    to me our gun laws are just more reasonable laws, not tyrannical oppression.

    Quote Originally Posted by BoardHitBack
    Why the national socialist position?
    lol... why the anarchist position?

    Quote Originally Posted by BoardHitBack
    We have the same law. i'm not offended by it because I would always wear one anyway. It's a stupid and anti-libertirian law tho IMO.
    less people wear seatbelts when you don't enforce it. it's no hassle whatsoever to put it on. there is no excuse not to do it; and most importantly they save lives. it's worth it. same with bike helmets.
    Last edited by danno; 5/06/2006 5:09am at .
  10. BoardHitBack is offline

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    923

    Posted On:
    5/06/2006 5:58am


     Style: Kyokushin

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by danno
    i'm really talking about uneccessary, life destroying drug habits rather than the drugs themselves... i mean, i'm all for medicinal marijuana. but banning certain drugs like heroin seems the only way to lesson the number of people ruining themselves.
    You are being inconsistent. Alcohol and nicotine habits cause more deaths, with alcohol also ruining more lives thru addiction than heroin. What you seem to be saying is drugs drugs you enjoy, or at least that society accepts, are ok, but those you don't are not. Heroin was banned in the UK in 1971 or 72. You could buy heroin over the counter if you were a registered addict. There were just under 200. Conservative estimates of heroin addicts in the UK today? Around 1/2 million. You also ignore the lessons of prohibition in the states. Alcohol made illegal, alcohol use goes up as does public drunkeness. There was also a surge in the power and influence of organised crime to the social detriment.

    Medical marijuana okay in your book, but not recreational. Weird. MJ okay- as long as you don't enjoy it...

    Quote Originally Posted by danno
    can you imagine what would happen if we banned cars? the ban of drugs and guns in aus has had no such effect!
    More people in the US die in car accidents than are shot to death. Banning driving would save a lot of lives. Doesn't make it right tho.

    Also some life-destroying drugs in aus have never been banned.

    Quote Originally Posted by danno
    besides, if you want to shoot recreationally or hunt, you can do it here. you just need training and a license, but can't use rediculous weapons. you just don't need an AK47 to kill a pig.
    I don't need a lotus to drive from A to B. I'd still like to be able to have one.

    Quote Originally Posted by danno
    i do believe in individual freedom! but we need to put limits on what is acceptable (i'm talking about what i want in my own country, not saying what others should do). this is what all laws are for - to keep things organised and civil. any law is a restriction of freedom.
    Laws should be in place to ensure individuals are as free as possible- not to organise people into a social program that benefits the hive. I didn't say you didn't believe in individual freedom, but that you privileged that which you consider beneficial to the state over it.

    Quote Originally Posted by danno
    lol... why the anarchist position?
    It isn't anarchist. i believe in the rule of law. I just think that it should not be in place to control me, but ensure I remain in control of my life.

    Quote Originally Posted by danno
    less people wear seatbelts when you don't enforce it. it's no hassle whatsoever to put it on. there is no excuse not to do it; and most importantly they save lives. it's worth it. same with bike helmets.
    Seatbelts do save lives. Who are you to decide whether someone should take advantage of that protection? What gives you the right to prosecute someone because they choose not to? At the end of the day, it isn't your life- or the states.
    He who attains his ideal by that very fact transcends it- Nietzsche

    I like my Te like I like my tea- from Fujian province and without any bullshit in it. Oh, and green. And scented with jasmine blossoms...

    Quote Originally Posted by A Better American Than You
    In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot.
Page 10 of 14 FirstFirst ... 678910 11121314 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Powered by vBulletin™© contact@vbulletin.com vBulletin Solutions, Inc. 2011 All rights reserved.