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.
How would anyone be able to prove that a law provided enhanced levels of liberty or safety. How would one even go about collecting emperical eveidnce to prove either?
Liberty and safety are subjective. If a law brings me a sense of security and liberty and my nieghbor feels the opposite, how could we qualify that law as being either beneficial or harmful?
All laws are passed to enhance our safety and liberty...
i do hope you are being sarcastic about the bolded part.
i agree with just giving the money to the robber, normally. most just want to get in and out with out fuss. and i also agree with the policy that the hotels have, again most of the time(i know it sounds contradictory but there is a method to the madness). the reason is that most hotel employees are NOT trained in the proper use of a firearm, and most people dont have the ability to keep a clear head in highly stressful situations.
while i also support seat belt and helmet use, i dont necessarily agree that laws should be made to encourage such use. and if you read further, i indicated that this is where it starts. government creates innocuous laws, ones that most people would look at and say, i can go along with that. then the laws start getting more restrictive, and people say, well these arent too bad either, until we get to the point where many of the freedoms we had before such laws were enacted are gone. at that point people start complaining about the cops enforcing silly little laws when they should be out looking for real criminals. all the while the various governments are making more people criminals with the laws they keep passing because too many people think they sound reasonable.
You are aware government is a reflection of the people and the laws that are created are also a reflection of the laws that the people want. There is no absolute in any of this, so don't bother looking for that.
You are aware government is a reflection of the people and the laws that are created are also a reflection of the laws that the people want. There is no absolute in any of this, so don't bother looking for that.
not really. for instance m.a.d.d. got heavy drunk driving laws passed, and while most would say in the beginning that was a good thing, m.a.d.d. is still pushing for even harsher laws against drunk driving. all to often these days it isnt the people that are driving the laws, its the special interests. remember that an election is really a popularity contest and not one of issues anymore.
You are aware government is a reflection of the people and the laws that are created are also a reflection of the laws that the people want. There is no absolute in any of this, so don't bother looking for that.
In addition to the idea that special interest group rule legislation, you have the problem of expanding government. One of the reasons that so many people are against the federal government increasing its own authority is because that inevitably disenfranchises larger numbers of people. The more local your government is, the better it reflects the will of the people. The more distant and all-encompassing your government is, the better it caters only to abstract visions of reality (too often as directed by special interest groups with large amounts of money), and the more it forgets and leaves behind the citizens that it supposedly serves.
Then you have to realize that all of this applies only to a democratic republic or similar kind of government where the people have any say at all in the politics that rule them. Other kinds of governments such as dictatorships and monarchies pass laws that often do not even remotely reflect the will of the people. America is still a democratic constitutional republic, but every year we give away more and more of the defining features that actually make this a government by the people and for the people.
You are aware government is a reflection of the people and the laws that are created are also a reflection of the laws that the people want. There is no absolute in any of this, so don't bother looking for that.
"Wisdom" such as the above is more-usually found in Kindergarten.
Here are the provisions that have been approved by the California State Senate.
The state Department of Justice must notify local law enforcement agencies when a person purchases more than 3,000 rounds of ammunition.
SB 47 by Sen. Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, bans so-called “bullet buttons” that are used to get around current laws banning detachable magazines.
SB 53 by Sen. Kevin de León, D-Los Angeles, to create new state permits that require background checks for buyers of ammunition. Buyers will also have to submit to a $50 permit fee to buy Ammo.
An additional 10 percent tax on all ammunition sold in California
SB 374 by Steinberg, D-Sacramento, to ban detachable magazines in rifles. (Yep, even a Ruger 10/22 will be considered an illegal assault weapon)
SB 396 by Sen. Loni Hancock, D-Berkeley, to prohibit possession of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.
SB 567 by Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson, D-Santa Barbara, to change the definition of certain kinds of shotguns to make them assault weapons, thus making them illegal in California.
SB 683 by Sen. Marty Block, D-San Diego, to require all gun buyers to take a firearm safety class and earn a safety certificate.
SB 755 by Sen. Lois Wolk, D-Davis, to increase the number of crimes – including offenses related to drug addiction, alcoholism and others – that result in a 10-year ban on being allowed to own a gun.
cops and other LEO are already finding out that they cannot buy any magazines or civilianized military look alike rifles also misnamed assault weapons outside their state at all. I do hope that it continues for all states that seek to limit the amount of rounds a person can carry on their person or for the type of firearm they can shoot.
Here are the provisions that have been approved by the California State Senate.
The state Department of Justice must notify local law enforcement agencies when a person purchases more than 3,000 rounds of ammunition.
SB 47 by Sen. Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, bans so-called “bullet buttons” that are used to get around current laws banning detachable magazines.
SB 53 by Sen. Kevin de León, D-Los Angeles, to create new state permits that require background checks for buyers of ammunition. Buyers will also have to submit to a $50 permit fee to buy Ammo.
An additional 10 percent tax on all ammunition sold in California
SB 374 by Steinberg, D-Sacramento, to ban detachable magazines in rifles. (Yep, even a Ruger 10/22 will be considered an illegal assault weapon)
SB 396 by Sen. Loni Hancock, D-Berkeley, to prohibit possession of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.
SB 567 by Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson, D-Santa Barbara, to change the definition of certain kinds of shotguns to make them assault weapons, thus making them illegal in California.
SB 683 by Sen. Marty Block, D-San Diego, to require all gun buyers to take a firearm safety class and earn a safety certificate.
SB 755 by Sen. Lois Wolk, D-Davis, to increase the number of crimes – including offenses related to drug addiction, alcoholism and others – that result in a 10-year ban on being allowed to own a gun.
"Wisdom" such as the above is more-usually found in Kindergarten.
Well sometimes I feel like I am talking to Kindergarteners in here.
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.
better than
