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. |
|
I will volunteer to get one
I would only if they became required
I would never get the NID
I'm undecided
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. |
|
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. |
|
Raised by: Gothlark, Sythix, KuRoSaKi.
Adopted: Snoop, Grandius, Linxx, Anti_nation.
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. |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
Last edited by Alric; 01-06-2008 at 07:48 AM.
For seat belts. You have to look at the bigger picture. What it is costing us health providers? |
|
Last edited by Howie; 01-06-2008 at 02:58 PM. Reason: puncuation
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. |
|
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. |
|
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? |
|
Last edited by ethen; 01-09-2008 at 10:38 PM.
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. |
|
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). |
|
Last edited by ethen; 01-09-2008 at 11:07 PM.
Hey Alric. The first I used "US" health care providers. Then I used thehealth care providers. |
|
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. |
|
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... |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
The Art of War <---> Videos
Remember: be open to anything, but question everything
"These paradoxical perceptions of our holonic higher mind are but finite fleeting constructs of the infinite ties that bind." -ME
|
|
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? |
|
Last edited by ethen; 01-14-2008 at 08:18 PM.
Bookmarks