223511 Bullies, 3550 online  
  • Register
Our Sponsors:

Results 101 to 110 of 135
Page 11 of 14 FirstFirst ... 7891011 121314 LastLast
Sponsored Links Spacer Image
  1. danno is offline
    danno's Avatar

    Light Heavyweight

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

    Posted On:
    5/06/2006 6:34am

    supporting member
     Style: BJJ

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by BoardHitBack
    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.
    i HATE cigarettes. not a big fan of alcohol either.

    Quote Originally Posted by BoardHitBack
    Medical marijuana okay in your book, but not recreational. Weird. MJ okay- as long as you don't enjoy it...
    i believe there is a difference between medicine and recreational drugs.

    Quote Originally Posted by BoardHitBack
    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.
    you kidding? an insane amount of people would die if cars were banned.

    Quote Originally Posted by BoardHitBack
    I don't need a lotus to drive from A to B. I'd still like to be able to have one.
    but there is a speed limit, other road rules and you have to wear a seatbelt.

    Quote Originally Posted by BoardHitBack
    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.
    imo - laws should make people as free, safe and healthy as possible. you need to reach a compromise between these things.

    Quote Originally Posted by BoardHitBack
    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.
    i'm not a national socialist either.

    Quote Originally Posted by BoardHitBack
    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.
    say you run an imaginary country. 2000 people a year die from car accidents. one of your advisors tells you that if you introduced a simple, unobtrusive law, 1000 lives could be saved a year. what would you do?
  2. BoardHitBack is offline

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    923

    Posted On:
    5/06/2006 7:34am


     Style: Kyokushin

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by danno
    i HATE cigarettes. not a big fan of alcohol either.
    You have made no call to ban them, despite their destructive nature. Your inconsistency stands. Many more people are killed by them than people with guns. (outside of warfare)

    Quote Originally Posted by danno
    i believe there is a difference between medicine and recreational drugs.
    There is. But with MJ if its safe fo one purpose, why not another? Bearing in mind when eaten it has no ill effects on the body?

    Quote Originally Posted by danno
    but there is a speed limit, other road rules and you have to wear a seatbelt.
    Yes but no control over what car you can own, or how you use it. Just that you stick to the limit on public roads. Fair enough. Wouldn't want you endangering other people without their explicit consent. What difference does the engine size make if you don't break the speed limit. Or in another scenario, what does the type of weapon you own matter if you don't kill anyone with it?

    Quote Originally Posted by danno
    imo - laws should make people as free, safe and healthy as possible. you need to reach a compromise between these things.
    That's nice. You believe that laws should protect people from themselves, and the risks involved in being free. Do you think boxing should be banned? Do you think mountain climbing should be against the law? Do you think going out after dark should be illegal? That would make people safer and healthier, right?

    Quote Originally Posted by danno
    i'm not a national socialist either.
    Didn't say you were. I said your position was.

    Quote Originally Posted by danno
    say you run an imaginary country. 2000 people a year die from car accidents. one of your advisors tells you that if you introduced a simple, unobtrusive law, 1000 lives could be saved a year. what would you do?
    It would depend on the law and its effects. You haven't told me why a government should have the right to prosecute someone for choosing not to wear a seat belt. This question does not answer mine- it evades it.
    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. danno is offline
    danno's Avatar

    Light Heavyweight

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

    Posted On:
    5/06/2006 8:51am

    supporting member
     Style: BJJ

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by BoardHitBack
    You have made no call to ban them, despite their destructive nature. Your inconsistency stands. Many more people are killed by them than people with guns. (outside of warfare)
    i would actually like to have cigarettes banned, but instantly stopping everyone from using them is not feasible. this is comparable to how i see america and her guns - it just wouldn't be possible to take all the guns away. so australian style gun laws are just not feasible over there.

    as for alcohol, i personally would not mind at all if it were banned, but the same kind of thing applies here too.

    Quote Originally Posted by BoardHitBack
    There is. But with MJ if its safe fo one purpose, why not another? Bearing in mind when eaten it has no ill effects on the body?
    negligable effect on the body, but the mind is another matter. and yes, i've smoked it.

    i don't think it should be legal. we already have cigarettes and alcohol, imo we don't need another one. i do think we should be pretty lenient towards pot smokers however. i don't think anyone should go to jail for smoking, but maybe get what amounts to a legal frown of disapproval. that's just about how it works here anyway unless you are selling large amounts of it. in canberra you can grow a couple of plants for your own use.

    i don't see things in black and white.

    Quote Originally Posted by BoardHitBack
    Yes but no control over what car you can own, or how you use it. Just that you stick to the limit on public roads. Fair enough. Wouldn't want you endangering other people without their explicit consent. What difference does the engine size make if you don't break the speed limit. Or in another scenario, what does the type of weapon you own matter if you don't kill anyone with it?
    cars do have to fit within certain guidelines. you can't drive a formula 1 vehicle around the streets, it isn't equipped for that. but as far as i know, there is no limit to the power cars can have.

    you might find this amusing, but i don't like the idea of cars on the road which can travel at 200kmh+. they're for the race track to my mind.

    my cousin actually died a couple of years ago in a high speed accident. but i dunno if such high performance vehicles should be banned. i'd have to think about this more.

    to me guns are a bit different. a tiny fraction of the population need guns, whereas the majority of people need cars.

    martin bryant shot and killed 35 people in tasmania (which was what caused the laws to change, mid 90s) using weapons which he did not need at all in the first place. you could probably use a hotted up car to kill 35 people, or even a kitchen knife i suppose. but he used a semi automatic weapon. we decided that people didn't need to have those kinds of weapons, and it was seen as a more pressing issue than fast cars.

    Quote Originally Posted by BoardHitBack
    That's nice. You believe that laws should protect people from themselves, and the risks involved in being free. Do you think boxing should be banned? Do you think mountain climbing should be against the law? Do you think going out after dark should be illegal? That would make people safer and healthier, right?
    like i said, you have to make compromises. boxing should be legal, not fighting in the street. mountain climbers should be well trained. streets should be made safe enough to walk down.

    Quote Originally Posted by BoardHitBack
    It would depend on the law and its effects.
    if you don't wear a seatbelt you get a small fine, that's it. so what would you do?

    Quote Originally Posted by BoardHitBack
    You haven't told me why a government should have the right to prosecute someone for choosing not to wear a seat belt. This question does not answer mine- it evades it.
    wearing a seatbelt is easy. it does no harm to make people wear them. in fact, it saves many lives. a small fine for not wearing a seatbelt is a good reminder, and imo fair.
    Last edited by danno; 5/06/2006 9:22am at .
  4. danno is offline
    danno's Avatar

    Light Heavyweight

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

    Posted On:
    5/06/2006 9:24am

    supporting member
     Style: BJJ

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    btw, in case you have already read that last post, i have just edited it.
  5. Don Gwinn is offline
    Don Gwinn's Avatar

    BJJ wins again!

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

    Posted On:
    5/06/2006 9:49am

    supporting member
     Style: Guns

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    i'll say it again, this thread should really be in general BS.
    Yeah, probably. I assume somebody will move it sooner or later. That's OK; all our posts will move with it.

    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.
    That's fine, but it's not a "right." It's exactly what I described above. You think it is moral for you to give what you can to help people who need help for one reason or another. I agree. If you actually give help in accord with your beliefs, that's wonderful (and I really mean that) but it just isn't a case of that person exercising his rights. It's a case of YOU exercising YOUR right to do what you wish with YOUR property, including give it away.
    If he had a "right" to your food, or your money, then he could simply take it away from you with or without your consent. He could take it even if it were the last you had . . . and it would be ethical, if not moral, because he would only be taking his own property for his own use.
    This may sound harsh to you, but it can be as compassionate if not more than your way, because it takes the idea of "deserving" charitable help out of the equation. It's your money, time and food, and you give it to anyone you want, and if someone thinks that person doesn't deserve your charity, they can sit down and shut up. Use extorted public funds to give to people on the basis that they have a "right" to such help, and you will never escape the debate over who deserves your help and who doesn't.

    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.
    When I mentioned the "Tyranny of the Majority," I wasn't speaking only of gun and drug laws. Our founders believed in majority rule, but they feared mob rule. No matter the issue, they were afraid that minority groups would be stuck on the fringes with no voice in a pure democracy. That's why they set up our republic with a Constitution which can be amended (by huge majorities, ironically) but theoretically cannot be violated by any law passed by the majority in the legislature. Drugs and guns are just two specific issues.
    It's nice to say they "benefit society," but the trap there is, who decides what a benefit is? Who decides what is a deficit in society? Most of the time, it has to be decided by the majority. But there are issues of personal freedom which cannot be subjected to a popular vote for fear of the mob. A person is smart. People are stupid.

    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?
    It is the same over here.

    And I am offended by it.
    ;-)

    I wear my seat belt every time. My passengers wear theirs every time. It has probably saved my life in the one serious accident I've had, though I couldn't prove it. That is the CHOICE I make for myself. I don't presume to make it for others, and I hate the fact that they've decided to make it for me.

    And then there are the unintended consequences, as always. My state only passed the kind of law you're talking about, with "primary enforcement" of seat belt laws, two years ago. Since then, my wife has been pulled over three times. Twice, police officers claimed that they had thought she wasn't wearing a seat belt. One officer actually told her that he pulled her over because she slowed down as she pulled out of a department-store parking lot, so he assumed she must have been buckling a seat belt.
    In fact, she'd been wearing her seat belt and her coffee had come close to spilling, so she'd slowed down to grab it. It was perfectly safe driving, but he got to do his fishing expedition.

    Now, these officers could have done the same thing before the seat belt requirement with the old game of "it looked like her tail light was out." But the seat belt deal gives them more power they don't really need.


    To say that you don't mind a law simply because it enforces behavior you already engage in is very, very dangerous. I don't walk around with $10,001 cash in my pockets, but I don't shrug and say that it's just fine that the government has more or less prohibited this behavior in many parts of the United States. It's not OK.


    Make enough really stupid laws that no one respects or obeys, and you make it easier and easier for people not to respect or obey any other laws. That way lies rot and ruin.

    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.
    So, it would be your contention that we have fewer heroin addicts as a percentage of population ruining their lives now than we had 100 years ago when heroin and all the other opiates were available over the counter at any corner drug store? I'm not buying that one. Abraham Lincoln used to walk to his corner drug store a few miles from here in Springfield, Illinois and buy root beer and opiates every week. They were supposed to fix his depression.

    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.
    An AK47 is an excellent weapon for most species of pig, at least the smaller ones. What would you use? A centerfire rifle in a very similar caliber to 7.62x39, most likely. Not much real difference there. And frankly, it doesn't matter. You don't get to decide what gun I need or don't need, and gun ownership is not just about hunting. Never was. This "you don't need that gun to hunt deer" thing is a straw man. It makes no difference whether I hunt with my guns or not.

    Even at that, your definition of "ridiculous weapons" needs work, too. What exactly are you allowed to have? Semi-automatic rifles? That's a no, right? No semi-automatic shotguns, either, so my pretty bird-and-clay gun, a Remington 1100 20 guage, would have been confiscated and destroyed by your government, wouldn't it?
    How about lever actions, the most popular deer rifle in the U.S. for fifty years, but also the dominant high tech military arm of its day? I've been wondering about the lever actions for awhile. I honestly don't know if they banned those or not.
    How about the gun I use to hunt whitetail deer, an Ithaca Model 37 Featherweight? That's a 12 guage pump shotgun--didn't your government take all of those and cut them in half?
    You can talk about how you're only denied "ridiculous weapons" and "assault rifles" but you know that's not true, don't you?

    this is what all laws are for - to keep things organised and civil. any law is a restriction of freedom.
    No, any law is a restriction of behavior. The entire purpose of law--EVERY law--should be to protect the rights and freedom of the individual. Otherwise, the individual has no real incentive to participate in the society. . . . and then we're all collectively screwed.
    *********************************************
  6. Don Gwinn is offline
    Don Gwinn's Avatar

    BJJ wins again!

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

    Posted On:
    5/06/2006 9:59am

    supporting member
     Style: Guns

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    i would actually like to have cigarettes banned, but instantly stopping everyone from using them is not feasible. this is comparable to how i see america and her guns - it just wouldn't be possible to take all the guns away. so australian style gun laws are just not feasible over there.
    I hear this a lot from gun-control advocates, especially the international ones. It never fails to give me the creeps. It's the equivalent, in my mind, of a thug staring at a woman on a train and telling her "You don't have to look so scared of me, honey, as long as you've got that big old boyfriend sitting next to you."

    The intention is to say something reassuring. . . . I think. . . . but the subtext is "You shouldn't be upset that I would like to do you ill and take your property at gunpoint as long as it's not practical for me to do so. As soon as it is practical, though, you should know that you'll be fair game."

    Creepy.
    *********************************************
  7. BoardHitBack is offline

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    923

    Posted On:
    5/06/2006 10:41am


     Style: Kyokushin

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by danno
    i would actually like to have cigarettes banned, but instantly stopping everyone from using them is not feasible. this is comparable to how i see america and her guns - it just wouldn't be possible to take all the guns away. so australian style gun laws are just not feasible over there.

    as for alcohol, i personally would not mind at all if it were banned, but the same kind of thing applies here too.
    So...basically you are for banning anything of risk, and would do so if it wasn't so much hassle.

    Quote Originally Posted by danno
    like i said, you have to make compromises. boxing should be legal, not fighting in the street. mountain climbers should be well trained. streets should be made safe enough to walk down.
    Except those dangerous and risky things things you don't have a problem with- that's your compromise.

    Quote Originally Posted by danno
    negligable effect on the body, but the mind is another matter. and yes, i've smoked it.
    Yes, abuse carries risks. What else is new? I've never smoked marijuiana BTW. I rarely drink alcohol and don't smoke. Other people can pass whatever chemicals thru their own blood-brain barrier IMO. It seems to me they should be the customs agents of their own physical borders.

    Quote Originally Posted by danno
    i don't think it should be legal. we already have cigarettes and alcohol, imo we don't need another one. i do think we should be pretty lenient towards pot smokers however. i don't think anyone should go to jail for smoking, but maybe get what amounts to a legal frown of disapproval. that's just about how it works here anyway unless you are selling large amounts of it. in canberra you can grow a couple of plants for your own use.

    i don't see things in black and white.
    Yes you do. You see all drugs as necessarily bad for society, and even worse you do so whilst being generally unaware of the history of drug use in human culture and the acutal effects of certain drugs on society. You also think people shouldn't be allowed the choice to use them- because they are "bad"- and should be punished for doing so. The argument you make is lame too. We already have this, so you are not allowed that. Come on.

    As being lenitent towards pot smokers...you aren't. You are saying they are criminals (except in Canberra) and that's ok.

    Quote Originally Posted by danno
    cars do have to fit within certain guidelines. you can't drive a formula 1 vehicle around the streets, it isn't equipped for that. but as far as i know, there is no limit to the power cars can have.

    you might find this amusing, but i don't like the idea of cars on the road which can travel at 200kmh+. they're for the race track to my mind.

    my cousin actually died a couple of years ago in a high speed accident. but i dunno if such high performance vehicles should be banned. i'd have to think about this more.
    If the answer is no it would make your arguments concerning guns pretty weak.

    Quote Originally Posted by danno
    to me guns are a bit different. a tiny fraction of the population need guns, whereas the majority of people need cars.
    So what if I don't need it? That isn't a reason for me not to have a gun- or to have that choice taken away. Same way not everyone needs a lotus- should that mean I can't have one?

    Quote Originally Posted by danno
    martin bryant shot and killed 35 people in tasmania (which was what caused the laws to change, mid 90s) using weapons which he did not need at all in the first place. you could probably use a hotted up car to kill 35 people, or even a kitchen knife i suppose. but he used a semi automatic weapon. we decided that people didn't need to have those kinds of weapons, and it was seen as a more pressing issue than fast cars.
    That's a shame. Why should I, or anyone else, not have weapons because of this incident? I'm not martin bryant.

    Quote Originally Posted by danno
    wearing a seatbelt is easy. it does no harm to make people wear them. in fact, it saves many lives. a small fine for not wearing a seatbelt is a good reminder, and imo fair.
    Do you seriously think people should be punished because they don't take advantage of a safety feature by choice? It seems to me you believe a government has the right to make that call- tho you still haven't provided a reason why they do.
    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.
  8. danno is offline
    danno's Avatar

    Light Heavyweight

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

    Posted On:
    5/06/2006 11:09am

    supporting member
     Style: BJJ

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    GODDAM there is so much to reply to.

    Quote Originally Posted by Don Gwinn
    That's fine, but it's not a "right." It's exactly what I described above. You think it is moral for you to give what you can to help people who need help for one reason or another. I agree. If you actually give help in accord with your beliefs, that's wonderful (and I really mean that) but it just isn't a case of that person exercising his rights. It's a case of YOU exercising YOUR right to do what you wish with YOUR property, including give it away.
    If he had a "right" to your food, or your money, then he could simply take it away from you with or without your consent. He could take it even if it were the last you had . . . and it would be ethical, if not moral, because he would only be taking his own property for his own use.
    This may sound harsh to you, but it can be as compassionate if not more than your way, because it takes the idea of "deserving" charitable help out of the equation. It's your money, time and food, and you give it to anyone you want, and if someone thinks that person doesn't deserve your charity, they can sit down and shut up. Use extorted public funds to give to people on the basis that they have a "right" to such help, and you will never escape the debate over who deserves your help and who doesn't.
    our welfare system mostly takes care of this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Don Gwinn
    It's nice to say they "benefit society," but the trap there is, who decides what a benefit is? Who decides what is a deficit in society? Most of the time, it has to be decided by the majority. But there are issues of personal freedom which cannot be subjected to a popular vote for fear of the mob. A person is smart. People are stupid.
    some people are stupid.

    Quote Originally Posted by Don Gwinn
    And I am offended by it.
    ;-)

    I wear my seat belt every time. My passengers wear theirs every time. It has probably saved my life in the one serious accident I've had, though I couldn't prove it. That is the CHOICE I make for myself. I don't presume to make it for others, and I hate the fact that they've decided to make it for me.
    if you don't wear a seatbelt, you're stupid.

    Quote Originally Posted by Don Gwinn
    And then there are the unintended consequences, as always. My state only passed the kind of law you're talking about, with "primary enforcement" of seat belt laws, two years ago. Since then, my wife has been pulled over three times. Twice, police officers claimed that they had thought she wasn't wearing a seat belt. One officer actually told her that he pulled her over because she slowed down as she pulled out of a department-store parking lot, so he assumed she must have been buckling a seat belt.
    In fact, she'd been wearing her seat belt and her coffee had come close to spilling, so she'd slowed down to grab it. It was perfectly safe driving, but he got to do his fishing expedition.

    Now, these officers could have done the same thing before the seat belt requirement with the old game of "it looked like her tail light was out." But the seat belt deal gives them more power they don't really need.

    To say that you don't mind a law simply because it enforces behavior you already engage in is very, very dangerous. I don't walk around with $10,001 cash in my pockets, but I don't shrug and say that it's just fine that the government has more or less prohibited this behavior in many parts of the United States. It's not OK.
    my whole life it has been the law here to buckle up. i've never had any problems.

    Quote Originally Posted by Don Gwinn
    Make enough really stupid laws that no one respects or obeys, and you make it easier and easier for people not to respect or obey any other laws. That way lies rot and ruin.
    doesn't seem to be the case here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Don Gwinn
    So, it would be your contention that we have fewer heroin addicts as a percentage of population ruining their lives now than we had 100 years ago when heroin and all the other opiates were available over the counter at any corner drug store? I'm not buying that one. Abraham Lincoln used to walk to his corner drug store a few miles from here in Springfield, Illinois and buy root beer and opiates every week. They were supposed to fix his depression.
    what happened 100 years ago doesn't change my mind in this case. if you could prove to me that legalising heroin in aus right now would cause a sharp, long term drop in addicts, i'd be all for it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Don Gwinn
    Even at that, your definition of "ridiculous weapons" needs work, too. What exactly are you allowed to have? Semi-automatic rifles? That's a no, right? No semi-automatic shotguns, either, so my pretty bird-and-clay gun, a Remington 1100 20 guage, would have been confiscated and destroyed by your government, wouldn't it?
    How about lever actions, the most popular deer rifle in the U.S. for fifty years, but also the dominant high tech military arm of its day? I've been wondering about the lever actions for awhile. I honestly don't know if they banned those or not.
    How about the gun I use to hunt whitetail deer, an Ithaca Model 37 Featherweight? That's a 12 guage pump shotgun--didn't your government take all of those and cut them in half?
    You can talk about how you're only denied "ridiculous weapons" and "assault rifles" but you know that's not true, don't you?
    i can understand how you would be upset about losing your posessions.

    i don't know every detail of the laws, but basically anything that be used to kill a number of people in a short amount of time without much trouble is illegal.

    Quote Originally Posted by Don Gwinn
    No, any law is a restriction of behavior. The entire purpose of law--EVERY law--should be to protect the rights and freedom of the individual. Otherwise, the individual has no real incentive to participate in the society. . . . and then we're all collectively screwed.
    i completely disagree.
  9. danno is offline
    danno's Avatar

    Light Heavyweight

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

    Posted On:
    5/06/2006 11:24am

    supporting member
     Style: BJJ

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Don Gwinn
    I hear this a lot from gun-control advocates, especially the international ones. It never fails to give me the creeps. It's the equivalent, in my mind, of a thug staring at a woman on a train and telling her "You don't have to look so scared of me, honey, as long as you've got that big old boyfriend sitting next to you."

    The intention is to say something reassuring. . . . I think. . . . but the subtext is "You shouldn't be upset that I would like to do you ill and take your property at gunpoint as long as it's not practical for me to do so. As soon as it is practical, though, you should know that you'll be fair game."

    Creepy.
    HEY WOAH steady on there champ.

    on a global scale, my views are more like yours. people in other countries can do as they wish as long as it doesn't harm me. i'm not saying that you should ban guns or anything like that. i'm saying that i really like how things are here.

    in my own country, people can think and say whatever they like as long as they abide by the laws. and if a law doesn't work, let's change it! as for those who break the law... in my family there have been many people who have broken the law in a pretty serious way. i don't consider them evil or inferior... face to face, just people. family, friends, lives just as valuable as anyone else's.

    just because i disagree with you doesn't mean i don't consider your opinion of value either.

    Quote Originally Posted by Don Gwinn
    I hear this a lot from... the international ones.
    YOU are the international one to me, bub.
  10. danno is offline
    danno's Avatar

    Light Heavyweight

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

    Posted On:
    5/06/2006 11:51am

    supporting member
     Style: BJJ

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by BoardHitBack
    So...basically you are for banning anything of risk, and would do so if it wasn't so much hassle.

    Except those dangerous and risky things things you don't have a problem with- that's your compromise.
    NO NO NO

    Quote Originally Posted by BoardHitBack
    Yes, abuse carries risks. What else is new? I've never smoked marijuiana BTW. I rarely drink alcohol and don't smoke. Other people can pass whatever chemicals thru their own blood-brain barrier IMO. It seems to me they should be the customs agents of their own physical borders.
    the scars are just too deep for me to see it that way. i care about everyone.

    Quote Originally Posted by BoardHitBack
    You see all drugs as necessarily bad for society
    i see most recreational drug addiction as deletarious, but that doesn't mean i think it should all be banned.

    Quote Originally Posted by BoardHitBack
    and even worse you do so whilst being generally unaware of the history of drug use in human culture and the acutal effects of certain drugs on society.
    that's just wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by BoardHitBack
    You also think people shouldn't be allowed the choice to use them- because they are "bad"- and should be punished for doing so...

    As being lenitent towards pot smokers...you aren't. You are saying they are criminals (except in Canberra) and that's ok.
    i think that the recreational use of MJ should be actively discouraged. i know many people who smoke. i don't see them as criminals.

    Quote Originally Posted by BoardHitBack
    So what if I don't need it? That isn't a reason for me not to have a gun- or to have that choice taken away. Same way not everyone needs a lotus- should that mean I can't have one?
    living without an automatic weapon isn't much of an ask. you don't need a lotus either, but you are much less likely to intentionally kill 35 people with a lotus.

    Quote Originally Posted by BoardHitBack
    That's a shame. Why should I, or anyone else, not have weapons because of this incident? I'm not martin bryant.
    you aren't, but someone else out there is. so you might say "well how about we ban everything pointy cos it might poke someone?" - because that is just fucking rediculous.

    this is in my opinion a miniscule limit to freedom. it's really not much of an ask. doesn't bother me one iota, and the number of people it does bother is absolutely tiny. and even though there may besome people somewhere bothered by it, their lives and freedom of speech are not being harmed - but their ability to kill someone is. the only thing it restricts is someone's killing capability.

    Quote Originally Posted by BoardHitBack
    Do you seriously think people should be punished because they don't take advantage of a safety feature by choice? It seems to me you believe a government has the right to make that call- tho you still haven't provided a reason why they do.
    you should take advantage of seat belts, especially if you have passengers. enforcing seatbelts is just a place to draw the line. reason? it saves lives.

    you still haven't answered my hypothetical question. would you make the law or not?
    Last edited by danno; 5/06/2006 11:55am at .
Page 11 of 14 FirstFirst ... 7891011 121314 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.