Lose LTC Quickly...update post 112

[davemata]

I'm just here shaking my head. We're a half flourish away from someone promoting anarchy as political system.

 

[MtRiverCharlie]

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.

Voting is a privledge in a civilized society.

Drinking is a privledge.

Mentally handicapped people still have the RIGHT to protect themselves. This cannot be legislated away. While they may not use firearms what's stopping them from creating some other form of arms?

 

[KDeez]

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.

The right to self defense is an innate human right. The only people who would deny this, are those who would claim that one category of people have a different set of human rights than all the others.

 

[xtry51]

I'm just here shaking my head. We're a half flourish away from someone promoting anarchy as political system.

I'm not at all for anarchy. I'm for punishing real crimes that result in physical injury or theft. I fully support a police and justice system that punish people for these crimes.

I am not for any law that prohibits action based on the premise that someone MIGHT get hurt or suffer theft.

That is not anarchy. I in no way support complete abolishment of law.

- - - Updated - - -

The right to self defense is an innate human right. The only people who would deny this, are those who would claim that one category of people have a different set of human rights than all the others.

The problem is they don't believe that. They think their life is more important than others because they are the elite all knowing class and they understand what it best for everyone, so just accept them as your superior.

It's OK becuase if we let them pass whatever laws they need we'll finally be rid of crime, suffering and world hunger. Didn't you know we can legislate all of those things away?

 

[MichaelJR]

Oh Jesus. Are a few of us still under the mindset that laws create a magical safety forcefield of love and puppies, surrounding us with the power of the state which will of course protect us from all harm before it comes down upon us?

You're like the bicyclists the ride in the middle of the street that think they won't get plowed down by a perc'd out soccer mom in a suburban because there are laws to protect their rights as bicyclists. "I am a bicyclist in the street, therefore, I am protected from drivers because of legislation for pedestrian and bicyclist safety".

So, drunk driving laws are in place, do they save lives? About as much as prohibition stopped the sale of alcohol, which is equally as effective as the war on drugs.

This thread is whacked.





"Send it" like chinalfr from my can attached to a string from another can in the lair of the dark lord kramdar.

 

[xtry51]

Oh Jesus. Are a few of us still under the mindset that laws create a magical safety forcefield of love and puppies, surrounding us with the power of the state which will of course protect us from all harm before it comes down upon us?

You're like the bicyclists the ride in the middle of the street that think they won't get plowed down by a perc'd out soccer mom in a suburban because there are laws to protect their rights as bicyclists. "I am a bicyclist in the street, therefore, I am protected from drivers because of legislation for pedestrian and bicyclist safety".

So, drunk driving laws are in place, do they save lives? About as much as prohibition stopped the sale of alcohol, which is equally as effective as the war on drugs.

This thread is whacked.

That's an excellent summary of their stance. Laws are like a warm fuzzy Linus blanket to them.

 

[bullseye]

How does this law of no carrying while drinking help. If your in your own home and having a few, have your firearm holstered on you, and "become threatened" to a point of having to defend yourself, your screwed by the way the law is written. If someone walks to a bar, has a few and then has to make that choice of defending himself against a BG, the state will torture the legally licensed individual because they were possibly " over the limit ", What is the limit to carrying while under an influence. Now, common sense should prevail with both the individual and the state, but between those two, there's going to be big time fail somewhere. Especially in Mass!

 

[Rob Boudrie]

The only people who would deny this, are those who would claim that one category of people have a different set of human rights than all the others.

Which describes every government known to man throughout history - with the only difference being the degree to which human rights differ between classes of people. The US is considered freer than most nations because, in general, the difference in rights enjoyed by the elite and the prols is smaller than in most nations.

 

[HTRN]

http://lewrockwell.com/crovelli/crovelli71.1.html

Good article today over at lew rockwell on a similar idea.

Now, setting aside the fact that anarchism does not imply an absence of law or defense, and setting aside the fact that Hobbes’ ideas about the state of nature are completely ridiculous, just consider how interesting their claim was in that particular situation. Five armed men sitting in a field dozens and dozens of miles from a police officer having a civil chat about anarchism without any one of us trying to rape, rob or kill any of the others is a rather remarkable thing if Thomas Hobbes is right about human nature. Equally interesting is the fact that none of us feared or even contemplated the possibility of being raped, robbed or killed by anyone out there in the wilds of the Colorado plains that day.

 

[davemata]

"Five Armed Men"....

Is there an accepted quote along the lines of, "An armed society is a polite society?"

 

[TReischl]

http://lewrockwell.com/crovelli/crovelli71.1.html

Good article today over at lew rockwell on a similar idea.

Yea, park those same five guys down in Dorchester and I will gaurantee you that they wouldn't be lounging around having a philosophical discussion about Hobbes, Anarchism, throwing their shotguns in the dirt or any of that other BS (given that the PD was not around wondering what they were doing). Instead, they would be wondering what slimeball was over by their Cadillac Escalades.

In other words, FRAMING the discussion the way Crovelli does is a good technique to prove a point, unless you get caught at it. Five guys, all friends, out hunting together do NOT represent either of the viewpoints he was discussing.

 

[HTRN]

Yea, park those same five guys down in Dorchester and I will gaurantee you that they wouldn't be lounging around having a philosophical discussion about Hobbes, Anarchism, throwing their shotguns in the dirt or any of that other BS (given that the PD was not around wondering what they were doing). Instead, they would be wondering what slimeball was over by their Cadillac Escalades.

In other words, FRAMING the discussion the way Crovelli does is a good technique to prove a point, unless you get caught at it. Five guys, all friends, out hunting together do NOT represent either of the viewpoints he was discussing.

Lets start a new thread about how with our failed social engineering we have created just the environment that you speak of... The worst thing we as a nation ever did for the poor, was subsidize and expand their ranks.
What you subsidize, you get more of, and at a higher cost. [sad2]

 

[TReischl]

Lets start a new thread about how with our failed social engineering we have created just the environment that you speak of... The worst thing we as a nation ever did for the poor, was subsidize and expand their ranks.
What you subsidize, you get more of, and at a higher cost. [sad2]

And with that, I can agree. Moreover, I firmly believe it was subsidized to gain votes.

 

[TReischl]

Don't even get me going....if I had my way there would be about 6 viable political parties. That way, we would be getting a lot less stupid laws passed, a lot fewer pork barrel projects...damn, I am gonna go off the deep end!

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Yea, park those same five guys down in Dorchester and I will gaurantee you that they wouldn't be lounging around having a philosophical discussion about Hobbes, Anarchism, throwing their shotguns in the dirt or any of that other BS (given that the PD was not around wondering what they were doing). Instead, they would be wondering what slimeball was over by their Cadillac Escalades.

In other words, FRAMING the discussion the way Crovelli does is a good technique to prove a point, unless you get caught at it. Five guys, all friends, out hunting together do NOT represent either of the viewpoints he was discussing.

There will always be a small percentage of people who are bad, and who need to have bad things done to them by force - and not always as immediate defense, but as after the fact deterrence; retribution and restitution. The question is simply who decides what bad stuff will be done to whom and who will do it?

 

[economist]

Yea, park those same five guys down in Dorchester and I will gaurantee you that they wouldn't be lounging around having a philosophical discussion about Hobbes, Anarchism, throwing their shotguns in the dirt or any of that other BS (given that the PD was not around wondering what they were doing). Instead, they would be wondering what slimeball was over by their Cadillac Escalades.

In other words, FRAMING the discussion the way Crovelli does is a good technique to prove a point, unless you get caught at it. Five guys, all friends, out hunting together do NOT represent either of the viewpoints he was discussing.

Dorchester exists, so we can't have people being free. Got it.

Nothing kills liberty like population density. People bump into one another, live on top of and under others, smell their cooking, hear their noise, and feel the bass in their music. And then we get the rules. People don't know each other, so they don't help each other. Government steps in there too. And finally you get generations of culturally inbred idiots who think that this cesspool of collectivism and servitude is the natural human condition. They point to that morass of fellow fools and say, "hey, just look there, we need rules or it could get even worse". Yes, it probably could. And you can blame generations of collectivism, dependence and entitlement for that outcome. But most won't. Instead, they blame everyone who won't trade even more liberty for less and less.

 

[That Guy]

You quoted him in one of your responses. That quote spoke of dove hunters and nothing of shooting into the air. Then you piped in about shooting randomly into the air. I quoted you wondering where that came from seeing as though the context of what you quoted and how you responded made it seem as though you were somehow equating dove hunting to randomly shooting into the air.

Then ochmude schooled your ass on AZ law.

I didn't randomly pipe in, his post was in direct response to me. But if you really feel the need to derail this thread entirely, here, I'll break it down for you.

First I said:

Where you and I are probably going to differ is your assertion that drunk driving is a crime without a victim. By your logic, I should be able to run outside right now and shoot my gun randomly in the air for as long as I want, but as long as no bullets ever hit a person or destroy private property, it shouldn't be against the law because there is no victim. Or I can drive my car through the middle of the city at 100mph and as long as I didn't hit anyone, shouldn't be against the law.

Then ochmude quoted the above passage exactly in his post and replied:

Where I live, that isn't against the law. In fact, like I mentioned in some other thread awhile back, our vehicles often get peppered by birdshot from dove hunters while we're patrolling during the season, and pretty much no one cares. Speaking as a fellow veteran, it's sad that you swore an oath to defend the ideals of freedom upon which this country was built, and you deployed to actively do the same, yet you really have no concept of what this freedom actually feels like. I don't mean that as an insult, but rather as a genuine expression of sympathy for your situation.

To which I replied:

You don't need to feel sympathy for me - I am doing just fine thinking on my own and not being part of the herd mentality. You believe that laws are always bad things without stopping to consider that sometimes a law curtailing your freedom is preventing you from injuring me or my family. Having personally known two people killed by drunk drivers and several others who have been seriously injured by drunk drivers, I don't believe I need to wait until a drunk driver actually kills someone before we charge them with a crime. They are participating in an activity that a reasonable person knows can have terrible results. If you can't see that as a problem, then I don't know what to tell you - you and I are going to disagree.

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.

So you see, this line of conversation did not begin by me or anyone else talking about shooting at doves. It was about shooting in the air randomly, which is illegal in almost every municipality in the United States. Not knowing that ochmude lives in the sticks where this is legal, I admit I was wrong in my assertion that it was illegal everywhere in AZ. For that, I apologize to ochmude, the state of Arizona (unincorporated townships only) as well as the Arizona Wildcats football team and the Grand Canyon - I was wrong.

Not that this even remotely resembles my original argument. I cannot and should not - legally or morally - go outside my house (my original statement) and fire my gun into the air randomly and for no reason. And if I choose to do so, I should be arrested. My neighbors and fellow citizens shouldn’t have to wait for me to actually kill someone doing that before I am stopped.

 

[TReischl]

Dorchester exists, so we can't have people being free. Got it.

Nothing kills liberty like population density. People bump into one another, live on top of and under others, smell their cooking, hear their noise, and feel the bass in their music. And then we get the rules. People don't know each other, so they don't help each other. Government steps in there too. And finally you get generations of culturally inbred idiots who think that this cesspool of collectivism and servitude is the natural human condition. They point to that morass of fellow fools and say, "hey, just look there, we need rules or it could get even worse". Yes, it probably could. And you can blame generations of collectivism, dependence and entitlement for that outcome. But most won't. Instead, they blame everyone who won't trade even more liberty for less and less.

I have this nasty habit. I deal in Reality. Dorchester exists.

You can wish in one hand, and crap in the other....let me know which fills up first?

I think I resent that you have labelled everyone "generations of culturally inbred idiots" and "fellow fools", evidently you consider yourself to be above the cesspool? My, having another attack of elitism, are we?

 

[Admin]

I didn't see him labeling "everyone" that way, just certain types. More of a "if the shoe fits..." kind of thing than a blanket label.

+1

 

[Terminator03]

I didn't randomly pipe in, his post was in direct response to me. But if you really feel the need to derail this thread entirely, here, I'll break it down for you.

First I said:

Then ochmude quoted the above passage exactly in his post and replied:


To which I replied:


So you see, this line of conversation did not begin by me or anyone else talking about shooting at doves. It was about shooting in the air randomly, which is illegal in almost every municipality in the United States. Not knowing that ochmude lives in the sticks where this is legal, I admit I was wrong in my assertion that it was illegal everywhere in AZ. For that, I apologize to ochmude, the state of Arizona (unincorporated townships only) as well as the Arizona Wildcats football team and the Grand Canyon - I was wrong.

Not that this even remotely resembles my original argument. I cannot and should not - legally or morally - go outside my house (my original statement) and fire my gun into the air randomly and for no reason. And if I choose to do so, I should be arrested. My neighbors and fellow citizens shouldn’t have to wait for me to actually kill someone doing that before I am stopped.

But, but that is another victimless crime, and as long as one of those bullets doesn't drop through someone's head in your neighborhood, you should be good to go - right? The basic problem as I see it here, is that we have a handful of people that are so far to the extreme of liberty and freedom that they lose sight of basic common sense. I do wonder though, if those same folks would feel the same way if they, or someone they love became a victim in one of these so-called "victimless crimes". For those claiming that laws do not stop people from doing bad things, as I've said before that only applies to those who would never follow rules/laws anyway. Fortunately most people do their best to abide by the rules which is why we don't have complete anarchy. Some people, myself included, decide to take measured risks at times by breaking speeding laws, carrying in a place where the rules say they can't and various other situations, but do so knowing full well that there will be consequences if caught. That is exactly what the guy in the OP decided to do. I don't believe he was ignorant to the fact that he was jeopardizing BOTH his DL and LTC when he made the choice to get behind that wheel, so in a sense he was exercising HIS personal freedom to choose by ignoring the rules and this time he lost.

 

[economist]

I have this nasty habit. I deal in Reality. Dorchester exists.

You can wish in one hand, and crap in the other....let me know which fills up first?

I think I resent that you have labelled everyone "generations of culturally inbred idiots" and "fellow fools", evidently you consider yourself to be above the cesspool? My, having another attack of elitism, are we?

Hey, if you see yourself as a culturally inbred idiot then that's on you. Clearly, honorable and respectable people in Dorchester. You brought the place up for discussion. You assumed that armed people there couldn't live peaceably. I noted that sort of thinking, and the cultural responsible for the myriad of rules and presence of crime, demands the rest of us live less free so that they might live in squalor. High density populations are notoriously short on liberty.

 

[TReischl]

I didn't see him labeling "everyone" that way, just certain types. More of a "if the shoe fits..." kind of thing than a blanket label.

nope, he used the word "generations", that includes everyone born during entire periods of time.

" And finally you get generations of culturally inbred idiots"

 

[HTRN]

nope, he used the word "generations", that includes everyone born during entire periods of time.

" And finally you get generations of culturally inbred idiots"

Interesting take, when I read it, I read 'inbred idiots' that have been around and propagate through the 'generations.'

Not that there are entire 'generations' of inbred idiots, or that even a single 'generation' is comprised solely of 'inbred idiots.'

 

[TReischl]

Hey, if you see yourself as a culturally inbred idiot then that's on you. Clearly, honorable and respectable people in Dorchester. You brought the place up for discussion. You assumed that armed people there couldn't live peaceably. I noted that sort of thinking, and the cultural responsible for the myriad of rules and presence of crime, demands the rest of us live less free so that they might live in squalor. High density populations are notoriously short on liberty.

No, you stated " And finally you get generations of culturally inbred idiots". Generations are entire periods of people.

I did not state that armed people could not live there peaceably. You will find no such quote on my part.

You need to reread what I wrote, simple as that.

All that being said, you wax philosophic about population densities, so what? Is it your belief that we should do away with laws? Or that we should force the people from the cities into the rural areas, similar to what the communists did in VietNam when the war ended, or to what Pol Pot did in Cambodia?

I do not see the point in talking about what you perceive to be the cause of your loss of "liberties" when you do not seem to have a solution?

 

[xtry51]

nope, he used the word "generations", that includes everyone born during entire periods of time.

" And finally you get generations of culturally inbred idiots"

Generation is a lineage. Not an all encompassing "everyone".

 

[Terminator03]

Didn't say you randomly piped in. I said you piped in. Big difference.



Didn't say that's how the conversation began.

+1 for admitting foot-in-mouth; I've done it quite a few times myself.

The Grand Canyon PMd me and said they didn't feel like your apology was sincere.



If your falling bullets do not damage property, hurt or injure, or in any other way infringe on the human rights of another, why should there be a law against it?

- - - Updated - - -



There are exceptions, though. For exam-..... Nope. I got nuthin'.

I get what you are saying in principle, but the reality is that these laws are in place because not everyone has the common sense to know that shooting up in the air might not be such a good idea when you live in a residential setting. Sure if you live out in the woods someplace it might be just fine, but then again, you could just do it anyway at that point since no one will be around to turn you in - right? Like I said, some of these laws are meant to cover the majority of the population who will do their best to abide by them, not the minority who don't care.

 

[TReischl]

Generation is a lineage. Not an all encompassing "everyone".

You have heard of the "Greatest Generation", yes? It refers to all the people who were alive during WWII in this country. Not a "lineage" as you mention.

- - - Updated - - -

Just to get this generation thing on an even keel:

[h=3]gen·er·a·tion/ˌjenəˈrāSHən/
[/h]

Noun:

All of the people born and living at about the same time, regarded collectively: "one of his generation's finest songwriters"

 

[economist]

No, you stated " And finally you get generations of culturally inbred idiots". Generations are entire periods of people.

I did not state that armed people could not live there peaceably. You will find no such quote on my part.

You need to reread what I wrote, simple as that.

All that being said, you wax philosophic about population densities, so what? Is it your belief that we should do away with laws? Or that we should force the people from the cities into the rural areas, similar to what the communists did in VietNam when the war ended, or to what Pol Pot did in Cambodia?

I do not see the point in talking about what you perceive to be the cause of your loss of "liberties" when you do not seem to have a solution?

Look, if you want to be offended, go ahead. I really don't care. What I was talking about are multiple generations of people in a family who come to view lack of freedom and dependence on others as a way of life. That state can exist, literally, next door to another multi-generation family with completely different views.

As for the rest of it, I think it should be self-evident I am not advocating the use of force against innocent people. Again, you took an example of 5 guys out west, armed and peaceable, and said:

park those same five guys down in Dorchester and I will gaurantee you that they wouldn't be lounging around having a philosophical discussion about Hobbes, Anarchism, throwing their shotguns in the dirt or any of that other BS (given that the PD was not around wondering what they were doing). Instead, they would be wondering what slimeball was over by their Cadillac Escalades.

My point is that Dorcester's existence -- for better or worse -- should not limit my rights. For some reason you think there are "slimeballs" there that steal cars. I don't know. I don't live there. But I do know that densely populated areas have a number of problems when it comes to liberty.

 

[TReischl]

The minority that don't care are the same people that would be doing it irresponsibly without a law anyway; all the law would do is make soccer moms feel better without actually altering the behavior of the people ho have such little respect for their neighbor to pull that shit in the first place.

If you are in a crowded area and pop off some rounds in the air, the best course of action is for you neighbors to arrive en masse and put some guns in your face to persuade you to do the right thing before something gets broken or someone hurt or killed. Once life, liberty, and property of others is infringed upon, then call the cops.

NES has a lot of soccer moms.

My liberty is infringed upon when someone's bullets are falling on my head from 3,500 feet. I have to stay in the house, until they stop falling.

 

[Terminator03]

The minority that don't care are the same people that would be doing it irresponsibly without a law anyway; all the law would do is make soccer moms feel better without actually altering the behavior of the people ho have such little respect for their neighbor to pull that shit in the first place.

If you are in a crowded area and pop off some rounds in the air, the best course of action is for you neighbors to arrive en masse and put some guns in your face to persuade you to do the right thing before something gets broken or someone hurt or killed. Once life, liberty, and property of others is infringed upon, then call the cops.

NES has a lot of soccer moms.

Right, and that's how it worked in the wild west, but I think we both can agree that those days have long since past. I know there are several guys here (possibly yourself?) that would love to have the clock turned back to the way things were then, but that is not our reality, nor is it likely to be anytime soon without a reset of epic proportions to pare the number of people down to what the population was at that time.