Just because "nobody wants them" doesn't mean you get to hold someone prisoner indefinitely. You can talk till you're blue in the face about "enemy combatants" but if you're holding someone with no intention of doing ANYTHING other than holding them indefinitely without trial or publicly presented evidence, it just makes you an asshole.
You cannot grant rights. Rights are things you have because it is your right. Rights are not given by the state/constitution/whatever. The promise to uphold our rights are what the state is there to assure.
It's also easy to rationalize those things on the Internet when you're not the one laying in a mound of dirt because someone didn't have their coffee that day.
Not sure where the Republican remark came from? I'm guessing it's because you think I must be, which I assure you I am not. I detest both parties.
You claim that not allowing regular people to own guns does not lead to totalitarian regimes, which I believe is just wrong. It is commonly the first step of tyrants is to disarm the people. Not to 'Godwin' the discussion, but look at Nazi Germany. For that matter, look at modern day England and to what degree of a nanny state they have become. If you think that is a good direction for America to head in, then we just have fundamental differences in opinion about what American liberty is supposed to be about. I don't know what to say about thinking nothing can ever happen in America, since that is exactly what everyone thinks, "it can never happen to me." As far as untrained fanatics going against the government, maybe you should look at, well, nearly any major conflict in the last 50-60 years. Ask a Vietnam vet what rural villagers with small arms can do. I can point to numerous examples of underarmed groups overcoming superior military might, and if you read a little history you can find them yourself.
And I agree ficitonal media does not cause violence. But a lot of people do. That's the problem, who gets to decide what indicates the potentially violent individuals you mentioned in your first post? Just because you think it doesn't means nothing, chances are you won't get to make those decisions. You see, I'm not in favor of banning your guns or your video games. I like all of the Constitution.
No, reducing the amount of deaths by 1 is not sufficient to limit liberty, nor is the prevention of 100 deaths sufficient. That's like saying it's okay to torture a terrorist if the information he gives you could save lives. Compromising our ideals is not worth it. There is no price too high for freedom to the man determined not to be a slave. So perhaps, as a nation, it's time to ask ourselves: is freedom no longer worth the cost? If that's the case, I wish we could at least be open about it.
Not only is it impossible to prevent a Newtown-like event, that is not my goal. The goal is not to be able to stop random acts of violence(which are on the decline, actually) but to stop the spread of the tyrant state. Do you think the TSA makes you safe? Another sideshow, just like gun control, meant as another means of controlling the people. It's time to ask yourself what is more important to you, a free and open society, or the illusion of society.
And both your "ways" are quite illogical anyway. Number one is entirely subjective until someone has acted. Maybe playing violent video games and movies makes one potentially violent; shall we ban those and imprison individuals who have been exposed to them? As for number two...that's just inane. You think people aren't able to murder successfully without advanced weaponry? Humans have been exceptionally talented at killing each others for many, many years before the invention of the firearm. As I said before, violent crime is on the decline - there are numbers that back this up.
Once again you are unable to put forth any type of logical response to my argument, and once again must resort to name-calling. If one person is able to make a logical argument, and the other is only able to say "nah-uh" and attempt to toss a perceived derogatory remark at their opponent, you have to start wondering who the "nut" is. You have shown no counter-points to my arguments against democracy. Furthermore, you fail to even acknowledge that you are incorrect in your assumption that America is not a democracy, and indeed a republic.
I'm starting to think you don't quite understand how things like debate and logic work and fit into discussing different philosophical beliefs. You would make a great pundit.
This is one thing I really cannot stand for people to say. We are not a democracy. Democracies are horrible things that allow the trampling of minorities. We should never just got with what the vast majority of people think simply because that is the majority for a couple of reasons. First off, this is the path that leads to tyranny. It is easy to see how a majority could impose their beliefs on the rest of the population: for example look at how much control the Christian fundamentalists have over America due to the majority of Christians. The other problem with democracy is that quite a large number of people are, quite simply put, stupid, evil, and easily manipulated. Are these the people you want deciding what is best for everyone? I don't.
Yes, he should be able to. Of course, he should also be charged with murder instead of unintentional manslaughter if there's any type of incident. You should be punished for what happens, not what might happen. Prohibiting acts and behaviors never works.
Why the hell is it any of your business what your neighbor does at all as long as he's not hurting anyone? Let him carry all the guns he wants to, I say. Decide to murder someone? Let em rot in jail. Look at it this way - it's not that crack should be illegal, robbing folks should be. You wanna be a crackhead, that's fine. Want to be a crack head that robs people for crack money? Then off to jail with you. We need to stop blaming actions on inanimate objects and demand that people accept personal responsibility for their actions.
Damnit, someone else pointed out why you're still wrong before I got the chance too. But I'm not worried, I'm sure you'll provide another opportunity soon.
But seriously, the fact is prisons in their current configuration don't help anyone - not the criminal and certainly not society. If you put minor lawbreakers in with career criminals, who do you think is going to be influencing who?
Slashdot Mirror
It shows.
"If the president does it that means it's not illegal!"
- An honest man.
Yeah, it sounds like ganjadude needs to get back on the ganja...
I've only squished three puppies. That makes it okay, right?
No, really. Stop doing this. I don't care if it's inconvenient - next time wrap that shit up.
You/someone needs to come up with a better solution. I'm tired of your 3 year old staring at my junk.
Did you suggest we tax LED bulbs extra because they are heavy? Are you fucking retarded or something?
That's the kind of shit you're supposed to think of before going to war, killing millions, and taking people prisoner.
Just because "nobody wants them" doesn't mean you get to hold someone prisoner indefinitely. You can talk till you're blue in the face about "enemy combatants" but if you're holding someone with no intention of doing ANYTHING other than holding them indefinitely without trial or publicly presented evidence, it just makes you an asshole.
You cannot grant rights. Rights are things you have because it is your right. Rights are not given by the state/constitution/whatever. The promise to uphold our rights are what the state is there to assure.
It's also easy to rationalize those things on the Internet when you're not the one laying in a mound of dirt because someone didn't have their coffee that day.
The people are not customers of the government. The People own the government, because the People are the government.
Batteries store energy. Solar panels are not batteries.
Think about it.
Where to start...
Not sure where the Republican remark came from? I'm guessing it's because you think I must be, which I assure you I am not. I detest both parties.
You claim that not allowing regular people to own guns does not lead to totalitarian regimes, which I believe is just wrong. It is commonly the first step of tyrants is to disarm the people. Not to 'Godwin' the discussion, but look at Nazi Germany. For that matter, look at modern day England and to what degree of a nanny state they have become. If you think that is a good direction for America to head in, then we just have fundamental differences in opinion about what American liberty is supposed to be about. I don't know what to say about thinking nothing can ever happen in America, since that is exactly what everyone thinks, "it can never happen to me." As far as untrained fanatics going against the government, maybe you should look at, well, nearly any major conflict in the last 50-60 years. Ask a Vietnam vet what rural villagers with small arms can do. I can point to numerous examples of underarmed groups overcoming superior military might, and if you read a little history you can find them yourself.
And I agree ficitonal media does not cause violence. But a lot of people do. That's the problem, who gets to decide what indicates the potentially violent individuals you mentioned in your first post? Just because you think it doesn't means nothing, chances are you won't get to make those decisions. You see, I'm not in favor of banning your guns or your video games. I like all of the Constitution.
No, reducing the amount of deaths by 1 is not sufficient to limit liberty, nor is the prevention of 100 deaths sufficient. That's like saying it's okay to torture a terrorist if the information he gives you could save lives. Compromising our ideals is not worth it. There is no price too high for freedom to the man determined not to be a slave. So perhaps, as a nation, it's time to ask ourselves: is freedom no longer worth the cost? If that's the case, I wish we could at least be open about it.
Not only is it impossible to prevent a Newtown-like event, that is not my goal. The goal is not to be able to stop random acts of violence(which are on the decline, actually) but to stop the spread of the tyrant state. Do you think the TSA makes you safe? Another sideshow, just like gun control, meant as another means of controlling the people. It's time to ask yourself what is more important to you, a free and open society, or the illusion of society.
And both your "ways" are quite illogical anyway. Number one is entirely subjective until someone has acted. Maybe playing violent video games and movies makes one potentially violent; shall we ban those and imprison individuals who have been exposed to them? As for number two...that's just inane. You think people aren't able to murder successfully without advanced weaponry? Humans have been exceptionally talented at killing each others for many, many years before the invention of the firearm. As I said before, violent crime is on the decline - there are numbers that back this up.
Once again you are unable to put forth any type of logical response to my argument, and once again must resort to name-calling. If one person is able to make a logical argument, and the other is only able to say "nah-uh" and attempt to toss a perceived derogatory remark at their opponent, you have to start wondering who the "nut" is. You have shown no counter-points to my arguments against democracy. Furthermore, you fail to even acknowledge that you are incorrect in your assumption that America is not a democracy, and indeed a republic.
I'm starting to think you don't quite understand how things like debate and logic work and fit into discussing different philosophical beliefs. You would make a great pundit.
An ad hominem attack that did not even attempt to refute a single point. How very typical.
You have no response then, I am to assume?
How do we fix it?
This is one thing I really cannot stand for people to say. We are not a democracy. Democracies are horrible things that allow the trampling of minorities. We should never just got with what the vast majority of people think simply because that is the majority for a couple of reasons. First off, this is the path that leads to tyranny. It is easy to see how a majority could impose their beliefs on the rest of the population: for example look at how much control the Christian fundamentalists have over America due to the majority of Christians. The other problem with democracy is that quite a large number of people are, quite simply put, stupid, evil, and easily manipulated. Are these the people you want deciding what is best for everyone? I don't.
Yes, he should be able to. Of course, he should also be charged with murder instead of unintentional manslaughter if there's any type of incident. You should be punished for what happens, not what might happen. Prohibiting acts and behaviors never works.
Yes. That is exactly what I am saying.
Why the hell is it any of your business what your neighbor does at all as long as he's not hurting anyone? Let him carry all the guns he wants to, I say. Decide to murder someone? Let em rot in jail. Look at it this way - it's not that crack should be illegal, robbing folks should be. You wanna be a crackhead, that's fine. Want to be a crack head that robs people for crack money? Then off to jail with you. We need to stop blaming actions on inanimate objects and demand that people accept personal responsibility for their actions.
Damnit, someone else pointed out why you're still wrong before I got the chance too. But I'm not worried, I'm sure you'll provide another opportunity soon.
But seriously, the fact is prisons in their current configuration don't help anyone - not the criminal and certainly not society. If you put minor lawbreakers in with career criminals, who do you think is going to be influencing who?
Which is why we never have repeat offenders, right?
Dumb people make my brain hurt.
Yes, American isolationism has always worked out so well for Europe...