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.
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.
He actually never said anything about militarizing the police, nor did he mention what police are for. You put the bolded words into his mouth.
Seatbelt laws are a bad example as that is another "DON'T BECAUSE IT IS BAD FOR YOU" law. Speed limits would be a better example if you wanted to stay in the realm of driving as they prevent collisions from being at high speeds.
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.
Thy hypocrisy be thy name. Common folk - too dangerous. Common folk with a Government badge, writ of immunized protection, sociopaths called politicians with the button to kill millions at their finger - A OK. Oh, but *those* guys calling themselves Government are of course looking out for *you*, your safety, your protection. Talk about the biggest lie in the history of mankind. Franz Oppenheimer destroyed that fairy-tale a long time ago, let alone people like Voltaire and La Boetie 400 years earlier.
Of course, instead of addressing my points, you simply cry 'extremist' which only means a differing opinion than the so-called majority. I know it's such a heinous sin in modernity. Talk about progress and tolerance! Shout extremist, or racist, so you don't have to say anything of substance, other than being against a majoritarian opinion = wrong. If you must then, I am an extremist liberal, just like this fellow:
Of course, the other reply was the Ought / Is fallacy. The law *is* a certain thing - that is, Politicians have codified 'prevention' of crime into the books, but that's not what the law *ought* or was for many a time. Talking about seatbelt laws. I'm sure those folks who were bilked out of their own money for their own so-called protection were very satisfied with the justice they received. The same goes for any victimless 'crime' (which is to say no crime at all!).
Anyways, I'll carry own being ridiculous - favoring the common person to be privileged with the same rights as the aristocratic (or if you prefer Political) class, who in so many esteem, are so much superior to us, that they can break laws that us commoners would have to abide by. And then they say us classical liberals are going to usher in the new feudalism! Ha! Ha!
PS. By the way if you're going to paint me with the scandalous, scarlet lettering label of extremist, might as well actually associate me with such esteemed groups like the GOA and JPFO, not the phoney baloney NRA.
PPS. Ask any Native American especially Lakota how they feel. I am sure those nice fellows from the Government at Wounded Knee were completely justified (of course Government abuse of weapons is never met with the call to ban them from owning weapons....). Suburban white folk who scream gun control are completely clueless.
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.
Anybody 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.
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.
Anybody 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.
I think you completely missed my point about militarization of the police. Not only did you fail to address it, you made it even more prominent in your argument. My point is that guns escalate violence, especially in cases of law enforcement.
Do you think the police should carry guns? Why or why not? If the common man all have guns, do you think the police should have military hardware?
And of course you never addressed suicide. But that's an uncomfortable topic for gun nuts. The fact that guns aren't so much used to protect yourself as kill yourself.
I wonder if you think the common folk in Ferguson, Missouri should be arming themselves. A tyrannical, out-of-control government is right fucking there killing their children.
Oh no, wait. Those are black people. Black people with guns = bad. I forgot.
On September 02 2014 22:06 DoubleReed wrote: I wonder if you think the common folk in Ferguson, Missouri should be arming themselves. A tyrannical, out-of-control government is right fucking there killing their children.
Oh no, wait. Those are black people. Black people with guns = bad. I forgot.
On September 02 2014 22:06 DoubleReed wrote: I wonder if you think the common folk in Ferguson, Missouri should be arming themselves. A tyrannical, out-of-control government is right fucking there killing their children.
Oh no, wait. Those are black people. Black people with guns = bad. I forgot.
On September 02 2014 22:06 DoubleReed wrote: I wonder if you think the common folk in Ferguson, Missouri should be arming themselves. A tyrannical, out-of-control government is right fucking there killing their children.
Oh no, wait. Those are black people. Black people with guns = bad. I forgot.
Really now... is that the best you've got?
So they should be arming themselves?
If "A tyrannical, out-of-control government is right fucking there killing murdering their children." Then maybe they should consider it.
On September 02 2014 22:06 DoubleReed wrote: I wonder if you think the common folk in Ferguson, Missouri should be arming themselves. A tyrannical, out-of-control government is right fucking there killing their children.
Oh no, wait. Those are black people. Black people with guns = bad. I forgot.
Really now... is that the best you've got?
So they should be arming themselves?
If "A tyrannical, out-of-control government is right fucking there killing murdering their children." Then maybe they should consider it.
Gosh I wonder how that would go.
Unless you're suggesting that the Ferguson police are totally respecting the rights of the community that they're supposed to be serving. If anyone has justification for open rebellion and open carry, it would be the people of Ferguson.
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? Governments answer to the people in a democracy. If there are issues with corruption then there are issues with corruption (which can be addressed in numerous ways, like changes to election system or checks and balances). That's not saying anything negative about government or democracy in of itself (other than it being prone to corruption, but that's far from exclusive to governments).
On September 02 2014 22:06 DoubleReed wrote: I wonder if you think the common folk in Ferguson, Missouri should be arming themselves. A tyrannical, out-of-control government is right fucking there killing their children.
Oh no, wait. Those are black people. Black people with guns = bad. I forgot.
What? Where on Earth did you ever get that idea? Let's just say I'm a lot more Malcolm X on this issue than MLK, if you catch my drift.
On September 02 2014 22:06 DoubleReed wrote: I wonder if you think the common folk in Ferguson, Missouri should be arming themselves. A tyrannical, out-of-control government is right fucking there killing their children.
Oh no, wait. Those are black people. Black people with guns = bad. I forgot.
What? Where on Earth did you ever get that idea? Let's just say I'm a lot more Malcolm X than MLK, if you catch my drift.
Er... Pre or Post-Islam Malcolm X?
So you think Ferguson should arm themselves? Do you think this would be a positive development?
On September 02 2014 22:06 DoubleReed wrote: I wonder if you think the common folk in Ferguson, Missouri should be arming themselves. A tyrannical, out-of-control government is right fucking there killing their children.
Oh no, wait. Those are black people. Black people with guns = bad. I forgot.
What? Where on Earth did you ever get that idea? Let's just say I'm a lot more Malcolm X than MLK, if you catch my drift.
Er... Pre or Post-Islam Malcolm X?
So you think Ferguson should arm themselves? Do you think this would be a positive development?
Post Nation of Islam. Anyways, I have class in the morning so I'll come back to this later.
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.
Thy hypocrisy be thy name. Common folk - too dangerous. Common folk with a Government badge, writ of immunized protection, sociopaths called politicians with the button to kill millions at their finger - A OK. Oh, but *those* guys calling themselves Government are of course looking out for *you*, your safety, your protection. Talk about the biggest lie in the history of mankind. Franz Oppenheimer destroyed that fairy-tale a long time ago, let alone people like Voltaire and La Boetie 400 years earlier...
I'm sure you've heard this argument before, but anyway here it is again. If you don't have government you have might makes right, which is worse because then the people have almost no control over what happens. This is the way it was through the majority of human history; there were no elections, just rulers and the ruled. Because humans are a practical species, they fought to extract rights and freedoms from their rulers through civil wars and protests (see how difficult it is in the middle east?). Eventually they won, and now we have rulers that respect our rights much more than they did previously, and they even give us the chance to elect our leaders so we choose where the nation goes as a whole (rather than the leader simply suppressing dissent through military power).
But specifically with respect to police and the military,they are now much more accountable for their actions. Its certainly difficult, but it is possible to use the legal system against people in power (senators, elected officials, and the police). So these people who, a long time ago, would have faced no repercussions for their actions are now liable and can be jailed.
So altogether its clear that while having rulers and government is not an ideal situation, its the best that our species have managed to do. If you have an example of a functional anarchy throughout human history that lasted longer than a few years that would be really great though!
I always enjoy when you post because it seems like you haven't changed your view in a decade . Maybe one day you'll evolve into a libertarian
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.
EPT
. Maybe one day you'll evolve into a libertarian
