So you agree with NICS?
Your other pro-government positions makes sense now, you are openly for gun control.
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
I was pulled in to a HR meeting at work due to the 2a.
- Thread starter leewongfei
- Start date
So you agree with NICS?
Your other pro-government positions makes sense now, you are openly for gun control.
I agree with the concept of NICS but I don't agree with what makes someone a PP. In a perfect world the dangerous are locked up, but I'm cool with people with violent felony convictions being PPs as long as there is an avenue of appeals for them.
Mike
Mike
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2009
- Messages
- 36,197
- Likes
- 54,641
This is kind of ridiculous. So if someone's negligence could result in death or personal injury you prefer to have the government simply outlaw private ownership of whatever it is that might be used negligently. You don't see any other way of addressing the crazy hypothetical situation you describe?
PeterGV
NES Member
Not just the acts of criminals, but also the acts of stupid people. Assuming you consider "denying access to" the same as "punishing", then yes. That's absolutely what I'm advocating.
There are plenty of alternatives (for stump removal, for example) that do not come with even NEARLY the same level of hazard as C4. Therefore, C4... not allowed. Simple to me.
Anarchism (which is what you folks are advocating) and the resulting anarchy that result from regulating ABSOLUTELY NOTHING scare me. Yes they do.
Until I'm caught in the (metaphorical) cross-fire, right? Then it becomes my concern big time.
We're not going to agree. We're not going to change each other's minds. I truly understand, and respect, the anarchist perspective. I agree it's a great idea. But, like socialism, it's a Utopian principle. It just doesn't work in practice outside of small, selective, homogeneous communities.
I just dont see how you draw a line like that. irresponsible gun owner, oh well worth the risk so we can all have guns
irresponsible grenade owner, absolutely not, must be outlawed for my safety
thats your prerogative I guess, but I don't get it.
A neighbor could endanger your life in any number of ways, having a faulty gas stove they refuse to maintain, building homemade bombs, playing with chemicals, wildly firing a machine gun, using your return address to mail threats to the president.
I just don't see why we need government regulations to save us (they wont anyway)
irresponsible grenade owner, absolutely not, must be outlawed for my safety
thats your prerogative I guess, but I don't get it.
A neighbor could endanger your life in any number of ways, having a faulty gas stove they refuse to maintain, building homemade bombs, playing with chemicals, wildly firing a machine gun, using your return address to mail threats to the president.
I just don't see why we need government regulations to save us (they wont anyway)
neighbor could get the memo off facebook that you could make an incredibly strong cleaning agent to clean your shitter in a quarter of the time just by mixing ammonia and bleach.
Government is just a proxy, he feels that he is superior enough to all of us to dictate who can have what, every scenario he has a perfect answer for who can have what. He should leave Massachusetts someday and go to a yard sale, it may seem like a miracle but there's no mass destruction when a gun is sold at a yard sale without a background check. I buy most of my guns through Uncle Henry's.
No one is making bombs out of black powder and fuse sold at Kittery Trading Post either.
As I said, there is a significant difference in killing capability between a firearm and many other devices.
We simply aren't going to agree.
bla bla bla if you're not an anarchist your an evil statist... save it.
Mike
We simply aren't going to agree.
bla bla bla if you're not an anarchist your an evil statist... save it.
Mike
ChevyGuy91
NES Member
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2008
- Messages
- 22,947
- Likes
- 23,596
This retort makes me LOL. Freedom is scary, so ANARCHY!!!!11
So who gets to decide where the arbitrary line of what is dangerous and needs restricting gets drawn? I clearly do not agree with your opinion of where it is and I am not willing to compromise on that, so do you get to use force to impose your will on me?
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2009
- Messages
- 36,197
- Likes
- 54,641
And to follow up on this, should natural gas be outlawed because some negligent dope next door could let his pilots go out and blow up his house and yours?
yes, UNTIL then, and not before. You are an advocate of government regulation to stop crime that hasn't happened.
such as gun laws, machine gun bans, assault weapon bans, high cap bans, drug bans, carry bans, THE TSA etc etc the list can go on and on
that is why I find supporting government regulation a preposterous stance to have in this day and age
- - - Updated - - -
I have no problem with people who need the state as long as I am allowed to be exempt from its rule and not subject to force for disobeying
Everyone here loves the founding fathers but apparently they were statists, seeing as they drew up the constitution instead of advocating anarchy.
Arguing with anarchists is about as useless as arguing with screaming moonbats. I'm outta here. Good luck Mike.
![[rofl]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/013.gif "ROFL [rofl]")
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2009
- Messages
- 36,197
- Likes
- 54,641
Do you agree that there's a whole bunch of ground between where we find ourselves today and where we would be under a strict interpretation of the constitution? I think everyone in this thread would be pretty satisfied if we simply abided by the constitution, rather than throw everything away in favor of anarchy.
I don't love the founding fathers, they had a far better vision of freedom than most and certainly better than what we have today, but most of them, promptly after ridding the country from royal rule, sought to impose their will on those who did not agree with them
not my idea of freedom
As I said, we simply won't agree. I see things differently than you do.
We all do agree on one thing though... the gov has gone Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too far with regulation for our safety. We just disagree on how far back we have to turn the clock. Regardless, neither of our acceptable points will be gone back to, likely ever. I don't see the NFA going anywhere anytime soon.
Mike
We all do agree on one thing though... the gov has gone Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too far with regulation for our safety. We just disagree on how far back we have to turn the clock. Regardless, neither of our acceptable points will be gone back to, likely ever. I don't see the NFA going anywhere anytime soon.
Mike
To address the second part of your post, yes, it is OK to have SOME rules and regulations if they are within the powers of the government that the constitution lays out. Today's set of rules and regulations is so far out of those bounds that even the most ardent statists have a hard time keeping a straight face when talking about it.
On the first part... let me ask you a hypothetical question based on a very simple (and real) scenario addressing your first question:
A friend of mine drives every day through a T intersection - he is coming up on the vertical part of the T and turns right. When approaching the intersection (which has a STOP sign), 80% of the time there is nobody coming from the left side of the T (the visibility is about 400-500 yards).
If my friend would decide to ignore the STOP sign, check there is NO oncoming traffic then slowly turn right without coming to a full stop... who has been harmed in this situation? What reason would my friend have to obey that stop sign (other than the obvious risk of getting a ticket)?
Obviously, coming to a full stop instead of safely driving through the intersection forces every driver to incur a cost in time, wear and tear on the car and gasoline - what would be the reason to incur that cost in the scenario described above?
If you poke around on the web, you can find some studies where places have taken out traffic lights and stop signs, resulting in fewer problems.
Forget the web - I'd highly recommend reading Traffic: Why We Drive the Way We Do (and What It Says About Us) by Tom Vanderbilt (Aug 11, 2009). As always, if shopping at amazon please use the Comm2A link.
But forget facts and scientific studies - I want a simple answer to my question in post 380 from Kalash or crazymjb. Who is hurt if a stop sign is disobeyed in that scenario and why should every drives incur the extra costs of stopping instead of safely rolling through?
We must accept common sense limits on our driving behavior. Rolling stops and other professional driving tactics are designed for race tracks and don't belong on our city streets. These limits are supported by over 90% of all people I spoke to.
You forgot to mention that while the general public cannot be allowed to do so for their own good, government employees are trained well enough to perform a dangerous maneuver like a rolling stop on our streets. So disappointed in you...
It used to be that laws governed wrongdoings, where there is an injured or damaged party (victim). Now most are just to control people or benefit others (creates a victim). This concept is opposed by some but seemingly welcome by many. I look at it like Ben Franklin I suppose. “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
The emphasis is mine, as that is the part often forgotten.
The emphasis is mine, as that is the part often forgotten.
That is an interesting analysis, thank you for sharing. Despite its original context, it still remains applicable in the context I used it in, which I still don't think is that far off to begin with.
How do you feel about someone who is falsely denied/delayed by the system?
This is why I don't support NICS or background checks of any kind. In addition to the PP bullshit (IMHO only known violent felons should be PPs, and frankly they should be in jail) but the system fails too much for my liking. It punishes too many people who are completely innocent. The only way to reduce its falsing rate is to do other things that are even more offensive to civil rights (like a biometric card that gun owners would use).
-Mike
Plenty here are opposed to DUI laws... not a crime until they kill someone in their mind.
I disagree. Some laws (and public attitudes) HELP to keep people safe.
Mike
If I had a nickel for every moron who thought he/she was paying attention and almost hit me... If I come up to a stop sign in the middle of a field at night with perfect visibility for miles in every direction, I'll still stop. Not because I'm afraid of getting a ticket but because it's a good habit to have and who knows, maybe, just maybe, there's someone there that I didn't notice for whatever reason.
It's obvious that a legislator's signature on a piece of paper can't stop you from doing something. Every single law can be broken. However, as a society we, by and large, choose to obey (most) laws and punish those that don't, and the solution does not lie in getting rid of all laws altogether.
Similar threads
