On Liberty

I understand the current state of gun control is at a heightened level of awareness. I feel it is necessary to take a step back and consider what it is that we are asking our government to do on our behalf. It was only 11 years ago that 9/11 occurred and our outrage allowed congress to give us the Patriot Act. This bill did little to increase our security but a lot to reduce our liberties. We need to be careful what we ask congress for, we may get something much worse than we have. Gun deaths are tragic, especially when the innocent die. What many on this board have been advocating is removing guns from the innocent as a means of removing them from the criminals. If it were that simple I would agree, yet it is not.

The deaths in Newtown, CT were horrible, I feel so much pain for those families especially since I have 2 children of my own in the same age range. However, using this as a rallying cry will likely result in more pain, for others that can be avoided. Taking guns out of the hands of responsible people will not solve the problem. Individuals should not have to rely on the police to protect themselves. The police are unreliable, slow to respond, and just as likely to kill the innocent as they are the guilty.

http://www.cato.org/raidmap

A better way must be found, yes, but at what cost? A system of determining who should not have access to weapons must be created that is just and based on cases were harm to others is probable. This will not prevent tragedies like the one last Friday, nothing will, but it will help reduce them. The rights of the many should not be infringed upon because we feel unnecessary obligated to not alienate the few.

I leave you with this final thought from John Stuart Mill:

The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him, must be calculated to produce evil to some one else. The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.

+1 Excellent post, FF.

+1 Excellent post, FF. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I started a similiar thread here:

http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=625154

And this is your first post in that thread...

It's nice you're sensitive to gay issues, WPF, but you unending "homo" jokes show your true feelings for gays. You're either in the closet, or extremely homophobic.

It's like saying you are all in favor of affirmative action, then calling someone a N***er.

You're a phony. But we knew that. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Maybe you just wanted to use the 'N' word.

FF doesn't have a history of insulting gay people with "homo" jokes. He has credibility. You don't have any credibility on the issue of gay marriage because of your incessant "homo" insults. If you have any further trouble understanding the difference, google it.

And you are a phony. And we knew that. Now quit hijacking the thread because your feelings were hurt by me. Take it somewhere else.

WTF, I admit that I had not read that thread. When I saw the title and the number of posts on it I chose to bypass it. I often do that in order to avoid spending 5 hours a night on here posting. I still have not read the whole thread but I did read your initial post and I agree with it in general. More to come.

I agreed with his post on gay marriage, too. I just don't think he believes it. He can't, and insult homosexuals so frequently. Now back to On Liberty.

Watch out FF, COG is probably going to make a pass at you soon enough. It appears he is sweet on you...

Watch out FF, COG is probably going to make a pass at you soon enough. It appears he is sweet on you... Originally Posted by WTF

I have enough issues in my life worrying about whether or not COG might make a pass at me or approves of me just doesn't rate. Like anyone else on here, I appreciate when they compliment something I have said and respect their opinion if they disagree with me. My only rule is that I will avoid subjecting myself to name calling and argument by deflection.

I post on this board because my friends and family either agree with me already or they disagree with me and are not willing to spend the time debating me on these issues. Since I got out of the Navy I no longer have the opportunity to debate co-workers, so you all get to be the sounding board to keep my debating skills sharp.

I will even admit to having my opinion be altered in some of these exchanges. In fact if I remember correctly it was with you.

I will even admit to having my opinion be altered in some of these exchanges. In fact if I remember correctly it was with you. Originally Posted by fetishfreak

Well let's not make a habit outta dat!

Good post btw, I hope you can stay out of the mudslinging. I admit , I'm like the other Monkeys on here, have grown accustomed to crapping in my hand and slinging it at the loudest monkey I can find!

Laws should never be created in the heat of the moment. If we allowed the victims to create laws when still in the moment rape would be a capital offense as would child molestation.

OK, time for the Spoilsport to float a big turd in the punchbowl.

Up until a few years ago, it was for all practical purposes completely illegal for private citizens to own firearms in the District of Columbia. The local career criminals had no problems whatsoever getting whatever guns they wanted.

Even today, it is for all practical purposes illegal to own guns in Chicago. (When the Supreme Court struck down the Chicago law, Chicago responded by passing another one that was just as restrictive.) Yet we still hear about shootings galore in the Windy City.

So: How do you propose to ENFORCE your newer, kindler, gentler rule about who can buy guns and who can't, against the known scumbags of the criminal world?

I admit , I'm like the other Monkeys on here, have grown accustomed to crapping in my hand and slinging it at the loudest monkey I can find! Originally Posted by WTF

Did I hear somone call StupidOldFart's name?

OK, time for the Spoilsport to float a big turd in the punchbowl.

Up until a few years ago, it was for all practical purposes completely illegal for private citizens to own firearms in the District of Columbia. The local career criminals had no problems whatsoever getting whatever guns they wanted.

Even today, it is for all practical purposes illegal to own guns in Chicago. (When the Supreme Court struck down the Chicago law, Chicago responded by passing another one that was just as restrictive.) Yet we still hear about shootings galore in the Windy City.

So: How do you propose to ENFORCE your newer, kindler, gentler rule about who can buy guns and who can't, against the known scumbags of the criminal world? Originally Posted by Sidewinder

Your "big turd in the punchbowl" is what I am referring to. It CANNOT be enforced, whether it is to eliminate the ability for a small group deemed dangerous or a large population as a whole, enforcement is impossible. Prohibition at any level fails. It failed with alcohol, it failed with tobacco for children, it failed with drugs, it will fail with guns.

Human beings are enterprising problem solvers by their very nature. Someone will always find a way to get what it is they want if they are told they can not have it. No laws can prevent that.

Our country is unique to the world, it does not have a history of being ruled under despotism. The European monarchies that settled these lands did so by sending those who were difficult to control over here promising land and wealth in exchange for paying a portion back to the crown. Those that came over new that they would have freedom to perform actions and live in ways not possible in Europe. The revolutionary war was a result of a monarch trying to gain more control over those whose lives were lived under a free system. He failed. The United States has always lived under a wild west mentality. To succeed in breaking that spirit would be to succeed would require the same effort necessary to succeed in convincing Afghanistan that our way is better.

This country needs to restore what it has lost due to government interference. We need to restore that sense of community that we once held so sacred. That sense that what happens in the community is important to all. Where neighbors are watching out for each other, and friendly advise is deemed as exactly that.

When I was a kid, and I was getting into mischief as kids often do, a neighbor would let my parents know and would let me know. Now people are so afraid of the possible confrontation that they just let it go. That is the closest thing to "enforcement" that is possible. Neighbors noticing potential harm and ACTING on it before it happens rather than speaking up ipso facto.

Here is my question...if you folks that are so opposed to gun laws because they can not be enforced...why not the same logic on drug laws? Is it because blacks are the dealers of drugs and whites the dealer of guns? th

OK, time for the Spoilsport to float a big turd in the punchbowl.

Up until a few years ago, it was for all practical purposes completely illegal for private citizens to own firearms in the District of Columbia. The local career criminals had no problems whatsoever getting whatever guns they wanted.

Even today, it is for all practical purposes illegal to own guns in Chicago. (When the Supreme Court struck down the Chicago law, Chicago responded by passing another one that was just as restrictive.) Yet we still hear about shootings galore in the Windy City.

So: How do you propose to ENFORCE your newer, kindler, gentler rule about who can buy guns and who can't, against the known scumbags of the criminal world? Originally Posted by Sidewinder

What is needed is for ALL the states to have the same gun control laws. Otherwise it is too easy to import guns from relaxed states.