Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What is the difference between disarming an individual who wants to be armed and forcing an individual to be armed with a gun when he refuses to? Aren't they both prime examples of totalitarian behaviour?
The fact is that the kill radius of someone with a gun is much greater than those who doesn't have 1, but this all becomes irrelevant when depressed people get their hands on a gun. Very depressed people don't give a damn about their own life, let alone of that of others.
Sadly America is a country where they deny (the effects of) depression (especially in the American Military).
Originally Posted by Greatday By claiming that many of the gangs in America are not originally from the US you create the false division that there is a difference between American Caucasian gangs and non-Caucasian American gangs.
The American Irish gangs, the Italian gangs and the UB etc aren't from the US either since they're from Europe. Heck, the Caucasian Americans originated from Europe.
Originally Posted by NoahmaOnly theoretically. LoL, I've found watching Gangs of NY (2002) and Amistad (1997) very enlightening. Except that the Patriot Act has shown the world how easy it is to burst the bubble of the division between the executive, legislative and judicial powers.So? The black Americans had been tyrannised for centuries by the white Americans because of the so called ' legal' segregation but gained full citizenship, instead of being 2nd rate citizens, without the use of a gun.
Originally Posted by pirate_lafitteAre you really advocating that if the majority of the citizens don't obey the speed limit, it then should be abolished?
That we only should keep the laws the majority wants to obey?
What if the majority of a nation are paedophiles, should the age of consent* then be lowered to the age 4? Nowadays the knowledge to make a WMD or some other kinda (dirty) bomb is readily available, does this mean that it should be legal for every citizen to create his own (nuclear) explosive device?
TrickyD, I am going to say this with civililty: Those are totally different situations. Pedophilia and speed limits are different. It is an American's constitutional right to own a firearm.
Many laws are for the good of the people, but some are just made to control the people. Some have the opposite intended result.
You have your opinion. I have mine. I am sticking by my views with no change. There is nothing you can say to change my mind. I respect the fact that you have your views. If you don't want to own a gun, that is your decision, but I don't believe is taking away the right to own a gun.
By the way, I was using the "crude gun" as an example of why banning guns and melting them down won't work.
Those are totally different situations. Pedophilia and speed limits are different. It is an American's constitutional right to own a firearm.
Isn't the pursuit of happiness not also a constitutional right?
I mean doesn't a paedophile and an illegal speed racer have the constitutional right to their pursuit of happiness?
Quote:
There is nothing you can say to change my mind.
I don't care about changing your mind; all I'm doing is participating in a public debate.
Originally Posted by pirate_lafitte Isn't the pursuit of happiness not also a constitutional right?
I mean doesn't a paedophile and an illegal speed racer have the constitutional right to their pursuit of happiness?
I don't care about changing your mind; all I'm doing is participating in a public debate.
Originally Posted by Huckleberry3911948What is the difference between disarming an individual who wants to be armed and forcing an individual to be armed with a gun when he refuses to? Aren't they both prime examples of totalitarian behaviour?
The fact is that the kill radius of someone with a gun is much greater than those who doesn't have 1, but this all becomes irrelevant when depressed people get their hands on a gun. Very depressed people don't give a damn about their own life, let alone of that of others.
Sadly America is a country where they deny (the effects of) depression (especially in the American Military).
where does the constitution force people to be armed? It gives the populace the choice to be, or not to be armed.
The thing is that here in The Netherlands smoking is banned from the public domain.
Not because the Dutch government wants to tell their citizens what they should do, but because we, as pragmatic Dutch people, have a public healthcare system to which each Dutch citizen has to contribute to.
Now the main problem is that smoking is not only unhealthy but it also makes our healthcare system absurdly expensive.
Besidez, why should I (a non-smoker) pay for someone who voluntarily is slowly physically disabling himself and / or committing very slow suicide by smoking cigarettes?
Another thing is that smokers generally don't live as long as non-smokers, so healthy people live longer and thereby contribute more to our healthcare system than smokers. Which is unfair.
If it was up to me gun rights, like smoking, should be banned from the general public. Let the professionals deal with criminals.
Originally Posted by noahma
Quote:
where does the constitution force people to be armed? It gives the populace the choice to be, or not to be armed.
By choosing to be armed you automatically force everyone else to be armed also. This is what has caused the weapons race.
Additionally, inasmuch as you are not an American, your opinion as to what YOU would do, is, essentially meaningless
LoL, being American is irrelevant in this debate since this is a public board where anyone can post his opinion.
Besidez, whether people like my opinion or not is not a concern of mine. I'm not a populist, nor am I a politician.
The thing is that here in The Netherlands smoking is banned from the public domain.
does that mean that smoking in public is not allowed, or that the dutch public is not allowed to smoke, period?
Quote:
Not because the Dutch government wants to tell their citizens what they should do, but because we, as pragmatic Dutch people, have a public healthcare system to which each Dutch citizen has to contribute to.
Now the main problem is that smoking is not only unhealthy but it also makes our healthcare system absurdly expensive.
Besidez, why should I (a non-smoker) pay for someone who voluntarily is slowly physically disabling himself and / or committing very slow suicide by smoking cigarettes?
Another thing is that smokers generally don't live as long as non-smokers, so healthy people live longer and thereby contribute more to our healthcare system than smokers. Which is unfair.
if it is the former (not smoking in public), which is what i thought was going on in your country, then the rest of this paragraph is pointless and does not actually address the situation. you are claiming that those laws were made because the pragmatic dutch realized that nonsmokers were still paying for the medical problems of the smokers.
those laws do not fix this problem–the dutch seem to be allowed to smoke within the privacy of their own homes, and on the streets. your analysis of the situation is false here; maybe it is skewed when it comes to firearms as well.
if you were to argue that the dutch realized that it is annoying to be a nonsmoker in a restaurant of smokers, then your argument would hold some water (though it would still be barking up the wrong tree).
but since you weren't, and you instead were arguing that banning smoking in public places will cut down on the amount of medical care that you will have to provide to smokers out of your own pocket, i can only conclude that you haven't fully thought out the cause and effect scenario that is being enforced among your own countrymen.
whatever the case, smoking is not the issue, but if you are using the same logic in both cases–which i would assume that you are since you are using the one as an example of what should happen to the other–then your treatment of the issue has been rather blatantly poor.
i understand that we have differences of opinion, and opinion is certainly relative and subjective. but when we get into false comparisons, and action-reaction arguments that don't work, then opinion doesn't really hold any weight in the discussion.
aaron out.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Aren't they both prime examples of totalitarian behaviour?
Very depressed people don't give a damn about their own life, let alone of that of others.
Heck, the Caucasian Americans originated from Europe.
LoL, I've found watching Gangs of NY (2002) and Amistad (1997) very enlightening.
Except that the Patriot Act has shown the world how easy it is to burst the bubble of the division between the executive, legislative and judicial powers.So? 
The black Americans had been tyrannised for centuries by the white Americans because of the so called ' legal' segregation but gained full citizenship, instead of being 2nd rate citizens, without the use of a gun.
Are you really advocating that if the majority of the citizens don't obey the speed limit, it then should be abolished?
Nowadays the knowledge to make a WMD or some other kinda (dirty) bomb is readily available, does this mean that it should be legal for every citizen to create his own (nuclear) explosive device?
Isn't the pursuit of happiness not also a constitutional right?
The thing is that here in The Netherlands smoking is banned from the public domain.
Which is unfair.
