Printable View
A grown adult should be able to decide if they want to wear one or not. If its dangerous or not isn't the issue. Its the fact a person should be able to decide, and the government should respect their choice.
As for guns, people already have protection from their fellow unstable citizen who happens to carry a gun. Which is a gun of their own.
But if that person dident have a gun, said other citizen would not need one to protect himself. And plus, a unstable person would do ALOT less damage if they went beserk without a gun, then if they did with a gun.
But that unstable person is going to have a gun, law or no law. Banning guns would get rid of guns about like banning drugs (at least the ones politicians don't care so much about doing themselves) has gotten rid of drugs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Volcon
Thats not true, because there are other threats you need protection from. Unless your able to elimite all of them, limiting people who can defend themself isn't right. What happens if in the process of trying to ban someone you deam unstable to to own a gun, you ban someone who is stable from owning a gun? What happens if that person then gets attacked by a criminal and dies because he had no way to defend himself. You would be directly responsible for that person death. The governments job is to protect people not put them into danger.Quote:
Originally Posted by Volcon
I don't know if there are enough cases of criminal attacks toward common citizens (I mean like a middle class family who owns a nice little house type of thing) to warrant making gun ownership legal to everyone. There are many cases of children getting a hold of those guns... In my opinion, the negatives of gun ownership far outweight the positives, but I do realize that this is not a black and white issue, and I definitely understand the points that were made on the other side.
Why is it important to not restrict the types of guns people can own?
Kids need to be educated on guns, starting in nursery school.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mes Tarrant
Lots of times it's little toddlers who aren't old enough to talk yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
In any case, if guns were made legal to everyone, I highly doubt an improvement in the education system will go hand in hand with that.
Theres so many things wrong with that I dont know where to start. First off, there are tons of crimes against people. Obviously the US isn't a country of peace and love.
Second, there no such thing as an average citzen. You saying poor people shouldn't be able to defend themself? This isn't about groups of people(middle class families), this is about individuals. And all individuals have the right to own a gun.
Third, what warrents people having guns? How many people can die and it still be ok to ban guns? To me, its totally unacceptable for the government to take away a persons ability to defend themself in the face of danger. Even if its one person who dies because the government banned guns, is not right.
Fourth, the right to own a gun and defend yourself is a god given right everyone has. The government has no right to take away this right, for any reason. It is not up to them to decide.
And lastly, is you remove weapons from the hands of the people, the government has the manoploy on force. Without guns we are China, we are Russia, we are iraq under suddam and germany under hitler. Once guns are banned from a country your steps away from having a totalitarian government. Governments have killed more people than anything else in the world. They can not be trusted. If you give up your right to defend yourself, you give up all ability to stop the government from murdering and enslaving you. Would the US government do that today? No because we own guns. Would they do it if we gave up our weapons? Based on the known history of the world, yes. They would.
For seat belts. You have to look at the bigger picture. What it is costing us health providers?
Do you feel it is another law enacted to force new tickets and gain more money. Or possibly that they are in cahoots with the health care providers? I'm not being sarcastic, this is possible.
Why is it that when someone finds something they feel it taking away their rights, they now become defensive and BIG brother is out to get them. :parapet:
To a degree, I understand that you have to be very careful, as governments slowly slip in their control.
This is why, in another post Universal Mind, that I said, "Stand for something and fall for everything."
Gun control and the drug war. What a poor comparison.
If they did ban guns, would there be more gun owners than before because it is illegal? The forbidden fruit if you will? Like how you claim that is happening with drugs.
Also going back to our other debate.
When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. We do not want that.
When drugs are illegal (as they are) only drug users will do drugs - As it should be.
"Only" used sparingly. Not all inclusive. It never is.
The governments as we know them now, are far beyond the capabilities of a well regulated militia. I don't think our fourfathers ever had imagined that it would ever get this lopsided. If it ever did come down to this I would wish we would have the courage to band together, maybe like Red dawn. Or like we see or insurgents that we are currently fighting. Small secular ARMED groups in remote terrain.Quote:
And lastly, is you remove weapons from the hands of the people, the government has the manoploy on force. Without guns we are China, we are Russia, we are iraq under suddam and germany under hitler. Once guns are banned from a country your steps away from having a totalitarian government. Governments have killed more people than anything else in the world. They can not be trusted. If you give up your right to defend yourself, you give up all ability to stop the government from murdering and enslaving you. Would the US government do that today? No because we own guns. Would they do it if we gave up our weapons? Based on the known history of the world, yes. Theywould.
Would it suprise you or anyone else to know that back in the 40's and fifties, when my dad was in school kids routinely took guns onto the buses and into school and kept them in their lockers and went on after school to go hunting and trapping as well as target shooting. Society never had a second though about it. And we are talking about 6, 7, 8 year olds and up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mes Tarrant
They knew gun safety, common sense and how to use those guns. There were no school shootings, no misuse of the firearms etc.
This is in this area with many small towns of populations 900 - 2000 and several bigger cities of 30,000 plus.
Education happened at home with guns and alot of other things. Its not the guns that is a problem, its the lack of education in and around the home thats lacking these days.
Large authoritative entities bring stupidity upon the people under them. IWthout the stupidiity being ingrained into the people the authority cannot control those under them.
The question is how did the situation degenerate like it as, and has done throught history from the ndividual taking care of his own responsibilities and own business with the social well being in mind to a pont where the individual is servant to the authority, dependant on that authority for seemingly everything?
Who cares what it costs US health providers? The US government has no business protecting businesses in that way. See it really doesn't matter why they do it. If its because they think it will help save lives, to protect health care providers, to make money writing tickets, or just because they jerks. The thing is they have no right to demand such a thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Howie
As for us fighting the government. Well just look at Iraq, if they can do it, then so can we. It might seem unbalanced and it might be but we still have our guns and thus a chance to defend ourself. Without guns, we would be throwing rocks at them, and believe me. We don't want to be there.
Hospitals cannot legally refuse emergency medical treatment to someone simply because they don't have health insurance. So, should someone get in an accident and not have medical insurance, guess who picks up the tab?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
Tax payers.
That consequence is worse than you simply having to put on a seat belt. People should be doing that shit anyway. Yeah, I get it. The government shouldn't be able to tell you what to do with your own body...but in this case, rebelling seems to be an ego thing. The only reason you don't like it is because the government is making you do it....which is just childish, if you ask me.
It's not like its a burdern or anything, it takes one hand and 2 seconds for christ sake. And no, i doubt its the government asserting its authority simply to slowly eliminate our rights. It saves lives, it can save you money, time , and hassel... and it can save innocent people the psychological trauma of killing your dumbass in a car accident, because you were trying to "stick it to the man" by not wearing a seatbelt. :roll:
You know, there are a LOT very import issues on which we should question, resist, and perhaps even flat-out defy the government on...but this just isnt one of them. This is just childish rebellion from an authority figure without any good cause. This is just disobedience for its ownsake.
Your right, they probably should be doing it anyway. I always wear mine, but thats not the issue. They still have no right to tell you what to do. You can't pick a choose what the government tells you to do. You either let them as they wish, which is what we are basicly doing now. Or you tell them no.
So what if in this case its actually a good idea? What about all the stuff that is stupid and pointless? Its not up to the government to decide, its up to each person to decide. Guess what? If it wasn't against the law I would still wear my seatbelt, I don't need the government to tell me. I am able to decide on my own.
Its not all or nothing, meaning you don't have to fight the government on every issue simply to preserve the rights you wish to keep intact. You focus on the issues you don't agree with (and concentrate your efforts on those) instead of waisting your time trying to fight every single issue, even the ones you agree with. Thats pointless, and even counter-freedom (since freedom is something that needs protection, whether its from people or the government). The only thing keeping the US even remotely free is the law of the constitution. Without that, the government wouldn't have to be so slow and sneaky about increasing their authority. They would just do it and kill anyone who disagreed...like so many other countries. And you have to remember, the government isn't a "one-minded" entity, its composed of millions of individuals with individual feelings. There are people in the government who actually are fighting for freedom, there actually are people who are trying to make things better for the people (instead of only themselves or the government).Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
Thats my point exatcly. You aren't fighting the law because you don't agree with it, you are fighting it because you are stubborn. "If it wasn't against the law I would still wear my seatbelt, I don't need the government to tell me. I am able to decide on my own" demonstrates this point very clearly. If you think wearing a belt is a good idea, why stop doing it because the government feels the same way??
If people (as a whole) could take care of themselves, the government wouldn't have to make stupid laws like the seatbelt law, or the transfat law. But guess what? MILLIONS of people are too stupid to make wise decisions and take care of themselves, and unfortunately the only thing the government can do for these people is to force them to make wise choices via the threat of punishment.
Yeah, its sucks for those of us who can take care of ourselves, but whats the big deal about just abiding by the laws we were going to do ourselves anyway...if only so that those who aren't wise enough to do it for themselves can also be protected. Do you really have so much stubborn pride that you would, not only disobey laws you personally feel are right, but also try to eliminate the only form of help these unwise people have on their side?
Hey Alric. The first I used "US" health care providers. Then I used thehealth care providers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
So I meant us providers, Those who have insurance and that pay outrageous costs for those who do not have it. I should have been more specific.
I agree though, It is still a touchy issue to demand that. Similar to wearing a helmet too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
Often in these debates we compare countries. I don't think that this is accurate to do so. Our culture is much different than any others.
They stand behind something, united, religion.
We are too diversified I think to ever unite on anything. That is unless we were invaded. Like WW ll. If it were our government it would likely happen very slowly and methodically. Like Hitler did with the Jews.
What do you think?
Its called hypocrisy. How can I stand up for freedom, if I only stands up for freedom when its in my benefit? Its like with drugs. I am totally against drugs, I hate them, I think they are stupid. Drugs and seatbelt laws are exactly the same with me, but I am still against the laws for both.
Maybe I think wearing seatbelt is all great but someone else thinks it stupid? Who am I to force them to wear their seatbelt? Or maybe someone thinks taking drugs is the greatest thing they ever done. Who am I to throw them into jail for doing drugs?
You can't pick and choose your freedoms. Thats how it always works, first you sacrifice freedoms of other peoples, stuff you don't agree with. Then once they are all gone, you may very well be next.
If you wont protect peoples rights when they are in the minority, who is going to protect your rights when your in the minority? No matter who you are, its impossible to agree with the government on everything. So its better to allow people to make up their own minds instead of forcing them all the time.
This is not the kind of help people need. You said it yourself, the government is forcing people to do what they feel is best. Which is wrong. The government has no right to force its opinions on others in the forms of law. It has no right to defend people from themself. Its a ridiculous claim that you can defend people from themself, and it shouldn't be done. Its not their job.
what about murder and rape, then? It really doesn't matter if you personally feel that they are wrong...By your logic, you ought to go out and murder/rape people just to protect our general freedoms...
its the same thing, isn't it?
You personally feel wearing a seatbelt is important, yet you break that law to protect our freedoms.
You probably feel that not killing and not raping people is also important, but it looks likes you are going to have to break those laws too...to protect our freedoms from the big bad government.
otherwise that would be hippocritical of you, wouldn't it? To break some laws and not others eventhough they all affect our freedom somehow?
They key difference is that if you murder or rape someone you are harming another person. Wearing a seatbelt doesn't harm anyone but yourself, and only if you get in a car accident. No one has the right to harm other people. Thats the difference, and its a huge one.
You not wearing a seatbelt can harm others, I have already given at least two examples. Firstly, should you not have health insurance, not wearing a seatbelt and getting hurt causes financial harm to other citizens. Secondly, should you get into a car accident and die because you were not wearing a seatbelt, that can do psychological harm to the other person, regardless of it the accident was or was not that persons fault. Thirdly, if you have dependents in your family, not wearing a seatbelt can harm them, not only psychologically but also financially. There are probably a lot more ways not wearing a seatbelt can harm others that I haven't listed, but you get the point.
Keep in mind, however, that I agree with you (in your general stance) more than i disagree with you. I feel that people ought to be able to commit suicide, so long as doing so doesn't infringe on the rights of others. So, if you have no kids, no debt, no other contracts, etc...and are of sound mind, you ought to be able to kill yourself, so long as you do it on your private property.
Yea but accidents happen. You can't really blame someone if they die and their child loses their dad. You also can't be blamed for the secondary psychological harm to someone. Thats all stuff out of your control. Also if you want to get into arguements like that, one could argue that driving a car in the first place put you at danger of having an accident. And now you have a reason to ban driving cars. You could also take it a step further and say your at fault for leaving your house, but now we are just being silly.
Someone once said if a government becomes tyrannical and infringes on the people's natural rights, the people have the right to overthrow it. Some famous guy. I doesn't matter who.
I'm somewhat mixed on this. In a perfect world, centralising ID would make things a lot more efficient and easier. Of course, it isn't a perfect world so you have to worry about the government screwing up or people stealing it. Overall though...I'd be for it as long as very tough measures are put in place to protect the data.
Well, just looking at how the government operates without a national i.d. (ie. illegal wire-taps, detention without a lawyer, waterboarding, etc) would have anyone know that it's pretty impossible to safeguard privacy. So, giving them more information when it's not necessary, isn't a good thing... at all.
If taking care of a child is a legal responcibility, than shouldn't taking basic precautions to helping ensure that guardians well-being be legally binding by extension?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
I agree there should be a line drawn somewhere, but what you are proposing is a slippery slope fallacy that could just as easily be applied to any law, not just those that float somewhere in a gray area. Slippery slope fallacies work by making many incremental, yet small logical *assumptions*, that produces an end conclusion seems very probable. In reality, when you look at the overall gap in logic created by these individual (and small) assumptions, you begin to see why they are referend to as "fallacies". In fact, the same method can be used to justify the aboltion of law in general, since, as soon as you take that first step of allowing an authority figure to control what you can and cannot do of your free will, you are on that same slope of logic...just higher up the hill.
Because the assumptions are individually so small, they don't strike people as unrealistic. But overall, the conclusions that you can come to via numerous assumptions like this can indeed be quite unreasonable. The reason this specific fallacy is so dangerous is because you can't really pin-point the spot where the logic "gaps" (or gets fishy) because each gaps is tiny and evenly spread out. You see a lot of this in politics for all of these reasons.
Nevertheless, I still think this argument is redicuclous, especially considering that you yourself have already said that, if it weren't for the government telling you you have to wear a seatbelt, you would be wearing it anyway. Its not the principle of defending our rights as autonomous beings, its childish rebellion...or at best, not the wisest battle to pick if you really are trying to defend personal freedoms.
Thats all I really have to say about the issue.