Lose LTC Quickly...update post 112

[Admin]

Enough of the personal attacks. If they continue I'll be passing out vacations.

 

[xtry51]

So uhhh, I think we can all agree that the Native Americans had pretty expansive freedoms.

Tell me again how their lives were free of dangers.

Exactly.

Real freedom involves accepting danger of everyday life and relying on others to exercise their freedom responsibly.

Laws restrict freedom, they do not grant it.

 

[That Guy]

How does dove hunting = shooting randomly into the air?

And btw, the herd mentality in MA is hard left, progressive thinking. You are firmly in that herd.

Dove hunting was not what I said - I said going outside and randomly firing my gun in the air. Not the same thing and not what he responded to.

- - - Updated - - -

This is definitely a great discussion, and for once it appears everyone is playing nice, the forum must be slipping!

So much for that.

 

[TReischl]

You and Mass2A compliant beat me to it.

I in no way condone operating motor vehicles or firearms in public while under the influence. However a malum prohibitum law that defines some arbitrary value of "intoxication" is just feel-good bullshit that is passed by folks that like to ignore first principles.


Listen, doing something 'bad' with a tool to violate someone else's rights is certainly wrong in society (with or without government.) But to have arbitrary laws about sitting peacefully with a holstered firearm and a glass of bourbon is as much a logical fallacy as "hate-crimes."

I find that, folks that can't get past their emotions have a hard time digging deep into the logical principles of their beliefs and those effects are often times logically invalid.

The chimps comment is borrowed from Doug Casey (than you Doug) and is fitting, as in the middle of the bell curve, most folks just act emotionally and are generally well intentioned, just like chimps.

TReischl, you must feel that you know me personally as you bloviate quite a bit about what I "hate" and what I "do."

I assure you that your assumptions are wildly inaccurate and you have no idea as to whom I am.

I suggest that you sit back and try to squelch your emotions and visceral hate for liberty and re-read my posts. I find my positions only as logically as I can, exclusively from the basis of first principles.

Talk about some serious bloviating! I suggest you lean forward and seriously consider whether all this "first principle" theory would actually work in this century, or is it just some more hogwash put forth by someone who would like to gain some traction while they seek power? History tells me that things move forward, not backward. When you define your positions from one exclusive viewpoint, you may be called "narrow minded".

- - - Updated - - -

Warning heard, understood......and shall be obeyed.

 

[Terminator03]

It is interesting how some claim that these laws have "NO EFFECT" on behavior, and that may well be true for those who would not be inclined to follow rules in the first place. However, for many (hopefully the majority) of the law abiding/responsible citizens, these laws/rules are a sufficient deterrent to doing these activities. It isn't about a sheep mentality, or anything of the sort. We are all adults, so as such if you choose to knowingly break existing laws, then you are aware that there could be a consequence. I know personally, I would be a lot more inclined to just hop in the car to drive home after a few glasses of wine at dinner than I am knowing what is likely to happen if I get pulled over for having my license plate light out, broken tail light, etc. I do believe that as a society we are overburdened with frivolous laws, but when you take "your freedom" of getting drunk, then climbing into a car, you are then violating "my freedom", as well as potentially everyone else's on the road, and those are laws that I don't consider to be frivolous. I do think that the law regarding carrying should be better defined, though, because I do agree with others that it is mostly a victimless crime, as long as it stays holstered, but in cases where someone is too drunk to operate a motor vehicle effectively, then it's safe to conclude they likely wouldn't make appropriate decisions with regard to the use of their firearm either (inmo).

Honestly, those people here who shout "liberty at any cost" are the one's that most set our cause back, because they come off as lunatics to normal people when they say things like there should be no laws against OUI, or carrying guns while intoxicated, etc. All that does is get all legal gun owners lumped into a category together as crazies who need to be disarmed.

 

[That Guy]

Honestly, those people here who shout "liberty at any cost" are the one's that most set our cause back, because they come off as lunatics to normal people when they say things like there should be no laws against OUI, or carrying guns while intoxicated, etc. All that does is get all legal gun owners lumped into a category together as crazies who need to be disarmed.

You may as well give that speech to your dog - he'll do a better job of listening and reflecting on what you are saying.

 

[xtry51]

Talk about some serious bloviating! I suggest you lean forward and seriously consider whether all this "first principle" theory would actually work in this century, or is it just some more hogwash put forth by someone who would like to gain some traction while they seek power? History tells me that things move forward, not backward. When you define your positions from one exclusive viewpoint, you may be called "narrow minded".

- - - Updated - - -

Warning heard, understood......and shall be obeyed.

I fail to see how the year in which we exist has anything to do with freedom and responsibility.

 

[MtRiverCharlie]

Talk about some serious bloviating! I suggest you lean forward and seriously consider whether all this "first principle" theory would actually work in this century, or is it just some more hogwash put forth by someone who would like to gain some traction while they seek power? History tells me that things move forward, not backward. When you define your positions from one exclusive viewpoint, you may be called "narrow minded".

Your whole argument is under the assumption that human nature has changed. History is cyclical not forward moving.

These first principal theories can work if people are educated on their Rights and Duties as a Citizen.

 

[OfficerObie59]

Real freedom involves accepting danger of everyday life and relying on others to exercise their freedom responsibly.

Yes, but the question here is how much danger is acceptable.

Freedom means nothing when I get injured or permanatly disabled or injured by some retard who wants to drive home hammered from a bar.

Sure, that's a fair trade. Assuming the guy driving hammered is of average means and doesn't have insurance because we're living in Libertarian Land where it's not required, how do pay for the rest of your life in a wheelchair?

As far as I'm concerned the roads we all pay for are inherently public, and as such (and unlike the arguments for gun laws) are subject to restrictions on freedom to ensure their orderly use.

 

[TReischl]

I fail to see how the year in which we exist has anything to do with freedom and responsibility.

Honestly, I cannot help it that you fail to see how the "first principles" ideas and the year we are in relate. I personally like many of the ideas of the "first principles", but like a lot of things, the extremists take it too far...they run right off the cliff as they become enamored with "the good old days".

 

[HTRN]

Talk about some serious bloviating! I suggest you lean forward and seriously consider whether all this "first principle" theory would actually work in this century, or is it just some more hogwash put forth by someone who would like to gain some traction while they seek power? History tells me that things move forward, not backward. When you define your positions from one exclusive viewpoint, you may be called "narrow minded".

- - - Updated - - -

Warning heard, understood......and shall be obeyed.

I proudly wear your label of "narrow minded."

It is however very wrong.

It's interesting that you bring it up, as people like me (maybe a genetic mutation to be a libertarian) actually have zero interest in "seeking power."

The monopoly of force and power by coercion that is government usually attracts the folks on the other end of the spectrum, the sociopaths. Over the past ~230 years, our government has been concentrating the sociopaths and we are near a turning point where the system can no longer support itself.

I don't care if you don't agree with me, really. But just don't dare put your gun in my face and try to make me act as you think I should. I want you to be happy, if unloading your pistol, flushing the firing pin and disassembling your loaded ammo before you have a drink make you feel "safe," have at it.

Just don't assume that the government should stick their (your and my collective) gun in the face of the guy that has never un-holstered his gun before, but wants to have a cocktail after a long day's work.

 

[xtry51]

It is interesting how some claim that these laws have "NO EFFECT" on behavior, and that may well be true for those who would not be inclined to follow rules in the first place. However, for many (hopefully the majority) of the law abiding/responsible citizens, these laws/rules are a sufficient deterrent to doing these activities. It isn't about a sheep mentality, or anything of the sort. We are all adults, so as such if you choose to knowingly break existing laws, then you are aware that there could be a consequence. I know personally, I would be a lot more inclined to just hop in the car to drive home after a few glasses of wine at dinner than I am knowing what is likely to happen if I get pulled over for having my license plate light out, broken tail light, etc. I do believe that as a society we are overburdened with frivolous laws, but when you take "your freedom" of getting drunk, then climbing into a car, you are then violating "my freedom", as well as potentially everyone else's on the road, and those are laws that I don't consider to be frivolous. I do think that the law regarding carrying should be better defined, though, because I do agree with others that it is mostly a victimless crime, as long as it stays holstered, but in cases where someone is too drunk to operate a motor vehicle effectively, then it's safe to conclude they likely wouldn't make appropriate decisions with regard to the use of their firearm either (inmo).

Honestly, those people here who shout "liberty at any cost" are the one's that most set our cause back, because they come off as lunatics to normal people when they say things like there should be no laws against OUI, or carrying guns while intoxicated, etc. All that does is get all legal gun owners lumped into a category together as crazies who need to be disarmed.

Your freedom to exist absolutely does not preclude or trump in any way my right to defend myself regardless of what I've been drinking.

Apparently you feel your life is more important than mine and somehow you have the right to deny my liberty just so you can feel more safe.

That is my problem with these laws.

Apparently this simple statement of fact eludes you.

If not please explain how your life is so valuable it gives you the right to limit my behavior, before said behavior actually infringes on your person or property?

 

[HTRN]

Yes, but the question here is how much danger is acceptable.

Freedom means nothing when I get injured or permanatly disabled or injured by some retard who wants to drive home hammered from a bar.

Sure, that's a fair trade. Assuming the guy driving hammered is of average means and doesn't have insurance because we're living in Libertarian Land where it's not required, how do pay for the rest of your life in a wheelchair?

As far as I'm concerned the roads we all pay for are inherently public, and as such (and unlike the arguments for gun laws) are subject to restrictions on freedom to ensure their orderly use.

You might like this article.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/peters-e/peters-e12.1.html

 

[TReischl]

Your whole argument is under the assumption that human nature has changed. History is cyclical not forward moving.

These first principal theories can work if people are educated on their Rights and Duties as a Citizen.

History is only sort of "cyclical", we are not moving back to the Stone Age.

In your second statement, that "if" is a HUGE "if". I am old enough to actually have been educated as such, especially since I came from a very rural area where people actually believed in all that stuff.

My whole argument has nothing to do with human nature. Human nature has not changed one bit in my lifetime. People are still lazy,(that is why we invent things), stupid, intelligent, criminal, honest, etc.

I think believing that "educating" people to be good is a bit naive. It almost seems to be the rhetoric of the moonbats? That we can somehow talk someone into being good.

 

[That Guy]

Yes, but the question here is how much danger is acceptable.

Freedom means nothing when I get injured or permanatly disabled or injured by some retard who wants to drive home hammered from a bar.

Sure, that's a fair trade. Assuming the guy driving hammered is of average means and doesn't have insurance because we're living in Libertarian Land where it's not required, how do pay for the rest of your life in a wheelchair?

As far as I'm concerned the roads we all pay for are inherently public, and as such (and unlike the arguments for gun laws) are subject to restrictions on freedom to ensure their orderly use.

Obie said it better than I have been trying to.

And FWIW, I do agree with whoever said it to me way back on page two or three (may have been Mike) that CCW while intoxicated is not so inherently dangerous that it needs a specific law to prevent it and this might be something better handled by letting people be responsible for themselves and then dealing with only the offenders.

 

[HTRN]

need to be disarmed.

Awesome.

Another out yourself thread.

 

[drgrant]

History is only sort of "cyclical", we are not moving back to the Stone Age.

You mean "we" as western civilization, or humans in general? I can insert plenty of pics of dead/roasted children from Syria and other places that were taken in the past week or so if you really want.

Even in the west, countries like the US are advancing further into socialism. It won't be long before the socialism here exceeds that of many european nations or even Canada. How the **** is that "progress"? That's not progress.. that's marching towards mental retardation.

-Mike

 

[KDeez]

 

[TReischl]

Your freedom to exist absolutely does not preclude or trump in any way my right to defend myself regardless of what I've been drinking.

Apparently you feel your life is more important than mine and somehow you have the right to deny my liberty just so you can feel more safe.

That is my problem with these laws.

Apparently this simple statement of fact eludes you.

If not please explain how your life is so valuable it gives you the right to limit my behavior, before said behavior actually infringes on your person or property?

What seems to elude you is that YOUR rights are not always superior to everyone else's. You do not seem to get that drinking DOES impair your decision making capabilities, regardless of how much you deny it, it does. Once your capacity to reason has been altered, you have no right to endanger anyone else, plain and simple.

 

[ochmude]

BTW, check the laws in AZ - it certainly is against the law to randomly fire a gun in the air. It has been since April 2000. And you call yourself a law enforcement officer. I feel nothing but sympathy for you for not knowing the laws of the state where you work. For the federal government that is so oppressive to so many people.

If you're referring to ARS 13-3107, that only applies within municipalities, meaning within city limits. See, unlike in MA, we have unincorporated county land here in AZ, lots of it, and people live there. Here in Yuma county we only have 6 municipalities, in a county larger than the entire state of CT. If you live on county land, you can shoot into the air from your back yard legally.

 

[HTRN]

...better handled by letting people be responsible for themselves and then dealing with only the offenders.

This is the whole point.

"Being" intoxicated in the possession of a firearm is world apart from "Acting in a threatening manner" while someone happens to be intoxicated.

The latter should be prosecuted, and not the former.

 

[Terminator03]

Your freedom to exist absolutely does not preclude or trump in any way my right to defend myself regardless of what I've been drinking.

Apparently you feel your life is more important than mine and somehow you have the right to deny my liberty just so you can feel more safe.

That is my problem with these laws.

Apparently this simple statement of fact eludes you.

If not please explain how your life is so valuable it gives you the right to limit my behavior, before said behavior actually infringes on your person or property?

If I really have to explain this to you, then... oh never mind. It is simple really. Just as some people claim it is their right and freedom to smoke cigarettes. Sure, if you want to kill yourself, have at it! But, when you light up in the same room as me, or at the table next to me in a restaurant, you are infringing on MY freedoms. How can you in any logical way validate this? Same thing with a statistically proven danger such as drinking and driving. It's not about a double standard, but rather preserving the very personal freedoms you claim to fight for. Why should any of your freedoms put mine in jeopardy? What makes YOUR freedoms more valuable than MINE? See it works both ways.

- - - Updated - - -

Awesome.

Another out yourself thread.

Clearly reading comprehension eludes you! I never said that was my view, but whatever...

 

[MtRiverCharlie]

History is only sort of "cyclical", we are not moving back to the Stone Age.

In your second statement, that "if" is a HUGE "if". I am old enough to actually have been educated as such, especially since I came from a very rural area where people actually believed in all that stuff.

My whole argument has nothing to do with human nature. Human nature has not changed one bit in my lifetime. People are still lazy,(that is why we invent things), stupid, intelligent, criminal, honest, etc.

I think believing that "educating" people to be good is a bit naive. It almost seems to be the rhetoric of the moonbats? That we can somehow talk someone into being good.

We're really only a few red buttons or a giant asteroid away from the stone age. Plus some people who believe the bible as fact see at least 2 times where humanity was 'reset'. Societies rise and fall on a cycle and if you can't see this you need to re-read the foundations of western civilization.

Re: Education. What's the point of firearm education if we can't teach people to be 'good' or act correctly?

There's a difference between 'educating' students in the public school system and another on educating them of their Right's and Duties as a Citizen. Obviously, you can't understand this difference.

 

[TReischl]

If I really have to explain this to you, then... oh never mind. It is simple really. Just as some people claim it is their right and freedom to smoke cigarettes. Sure, if you want to kill yourself, have at it! But, when you light up in the same room as me, or at the table next to me in a restaurant, you are infringing on MY freedoms. How can you in any logical way validate this? Same thing with a statistically proven danger such as drinking and driving. It's not about a double standard, but rather preserving the very personal freedoms you claim to fight for. Why should any of your freedoms put mine in jeopardy? What makes YOUR freedoms more valuable than MINE? See it works both ways.

- - - Updated - - -



Clearly reading comprehension eludes you! I never said that was my view, but whatever...

Well, because they are HIS freedoms! Gotta remember, this is Mass, it is all about ME.

 

[MtRiverCharlie]

What seems to elude you is that YOUR rights are not always superior to everyone else's. You do not seem to get that drinking DOES impair your decision making capabilities, regardless of how much you deny it, it does. Once your capacity to reason has been altered, you have no right to endanger anyone else, plain and simple.

Then you're saying children, elderly, mentally disabled people, and prescription drug users have no rights since their faculties to reason have been altered.

Rights cannot be trumped. They are either of equal value or they devolve into privileges. Driving a vehicle is a privilege and self protection is a right.

 

[TReischl]

We're really only a few red buttons or a giant asteroid away from the stone age. Plus some people who believe the bible as fact see at least 2 times where humanity was 'reset'. Societies rise and fall on a cycle and if you can't see this you need to re-read the foundations of western civilization.

Re: Education. What's the point of firearm education if we can't teach people to be 'good' or act correctly?

There's a difference between 'educating' students in the public school system and another on educating them of their Right's and Duties as a Citizen. Obviously, you can't understand this difference.

Societies may rise and fall, but overall, the human race moves forward...slight hiccup around the Dark Ages.

Since when does firearms education teach people to be "good" or "act correctly". I took my Mass Firearms classes, sure did not get any of that?

Obviously, you do not understand a lot about education yourself. Famous quote, "You can lead a horse to water....." won't bother with the rest, you already know it, don't you? You really think you can teach everyone to be a good citizen? REALLY? Or are you going to brainwash them? Moonbat forum is over there-------->

 

[TReischl]

Then you're saying children, elderly, mentally disabled people, and prescription drug users have no rights since their faculties to reason have been altered.

Rights cannot be trumped. They are either of equal value or they devolve into privileges. Driving a vehicle is a privilege and self protection is a right.

Nope, that is what YOU are saying. Do not try to put words in my mouth.

But, the fact is, their rights ARE diminished. Example, children have no right to vote, or drink, among others. If a person is judged mentally handicapped, they may lose some of their rights, not all.

So much for your "A right cannot be trumped". Mentally handicapped persons lose their right to carry a firearm.

That is the problem with the "Sacred Rights" theory. In some cases, it just doesn't make sense. We don't put guns in the hands of raving lunatics and then wait for them to harm themselves or someone else. THAT is stupid.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, this has been fun and all, but I have some reloading to do.

 

[xtry51]

Yes, but the question here is how much danger is acceptable.

Freedom means nothing when I get injured or permanatly disabled or injured by some retard who wants to drive home hammered from a bar.

Sure, that's a fair trade. Assuming the guy driving hammered is of average means and doesn't have insurance because we're living in Libertarian Land where it's not required, how do pay for the rest of your life in a wheelchair?

There is no level of danger that allows you to have an agent of the state use a gun or threat of imprisonment to "prevent".

Only crimes that actually transpire should be punished.

If you're worried about being injured buy insurance for yourself.

Again I do not support drunk driving, but I support less the ability for you to point your gun at an individual and prevent them from driving.

 

[MtRiverCharlie]

Societies may rise and fall, but overall, the human race moves forward...slight hiccup around the Dark Ages.

Since when does firearms education teach people to be "good" or "act correctly". I took my Mass Firearms classes, sure did not get any of that?

Obviously, you do not understand a lot about education yourself. Famous quote, "You can lead a horse to water....." won't bother with the rest, you already know it, don't you? You really think you can teach everyone to be a good citizen? REALLY? Or are you going to brainwash them? Moonbat forum is over there-------->

While western civilization had a 'hiccup' in the dark ages you just need to look at the middle east in the same time period. They had a renaissance.

The whole point of firearms classes is to know the laws and prove that you can act accordingly. You know in a safe manner... I mean they teach the firearm safety rules in the Military too...is that not to make people act in a safe manner?

Just because you call someone a moonbat for encouraging civic education on their natural rights doesn't make it a fact.

 

[xtry51]

If I really have to explain this to you, then... oh never mind. It is simple really. Just as some people claim it is their right and freedom to smoke cigarettes. Sure, if you want to kill yourself, have at it! But, when you light up in the same room as me, or at the table next to me in a restaurant, you are infringing on MY freedoms. How can you in any logical way validate this? Same thing with a statistically proven danger such as drinking and driving. It's not about a double standard, but rather preserving the very personal freedoms you claim to fight for. Why should any of your freedoms put mine in jeopardy? What makes YOUR freedoms more valuable than MINE? See it works both ways.

If you don't want to sit next to someone smoking, go spend your money at some other business where it isn't allowed.

This is the kind of nanny state "My life is more important than yours" BS I'm talking about. You're using the law to impose your will upon others rather than just walking away from a situation that no one is forcing you to endure. You're creating this idea that somehow sitting down and having someone next to you light up is the same as you being chained to the table as a prisoner and them blowing the smoke in your face.

And again I don't smoke, nor do I like it.

Freedom allows you to spend your money and time at establishments that share your wants/needs. It also allows you to start your own business that caters to people who share in your ideals.

Freedom does not however mean you should be able to force your ideals upon others.