Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 10-02-2014, 06:55 PM
 
Location: Buckeye, AZ
38,936 posts, read 23,880,244 times
Reputation: 14125

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by irspow View Post
I believe we still have many drunks still causing accidents. The "presumption of guilt" law is ineffective in making those accidents go away. Again, if you want to really prevent accidents, abolish auto mobiles. Think of how many lives that will save!
So we go back to horse and buggies, wouldn't some people still die from being trampled by them? So do we get rid of them too as form of transportation? What about trains, those are just as dangerous because of errors or people walking the tracks. The problem is people rely too much on automobiles for that to ever be more than some theory, plus it opens the slippery slope. The problem is the people, not the machine. The person is more often the problem, not the car. Like the problem with guns is not gun control, it's gun safety. It's not gun that killed on its own, the person aiming it and pulling the trigger did. If you drive distracted (eating, drinking, under the influence, on the phone, changing the radio, saying "don't make me come over there," etc.) you are the cause of the problem, not the car itself. The only car problems are mechanical like a tire going down or the engine shutting off, everything else is the person.

If you really believe that you should outlaw cars, you aren't practicing your philosophy of live and let live because you are being "daddy" government and deciding what is right for people because you know them better than they know themselves.

Quote:
Originally Posted by irspow View Post
They would be just as effective as "presumption of guilt" laws, which is to say it would have no effect upon suicide bombers. They are willing to die to set off a bomb, no law is going to scare them. What are you going to do sentence their dead body to Hell...
You're right on a suicide bomber. The only thing you can do is find them and potentially stop them (hard I know) and sentence them to life in prison.

 
Old 10-02-2014, 07:20 PM
 
1,259 posts, read 828,222 times
Reputation: 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk View Post
You're right on a suicide bomber. The only thing you can do is find them and potentially stop them (hard I know) and sentence them to life in prison.
No, he's absolutely wrong, the only thing you can do about suicide bombers, and terrorists in general, is neutralize the threat before it materializes and causes a massacre. Waiting for the bombs to explode is not an option. That's why libertarian belief that laws prohibiting citizens from obtaining, making and possessing bombs are immoral is simply absurd. Retaliatory laws are not the answer to crime.

Luckily for libertarians they don't have to have practical solutions for anything as they never run and most likely never will any government or society lol
 
Old 10-02-2014, 07:31 PM
 
2,776 posts, read 3,593,491 times
Reputation: 2312
Quote:
Originally Posted by random_thoughts View Post
No, he's absolutely wrong, the only thing you can do about suicide bombers, and terrorists in general, is neutralize the threat before it materializes and causes a massacre. Waiting for the bombs to explode is not an option. That's why libertarian belief that laws prohibiting citizens from obtaining, making and possessing bombs are immoral is simply absurd. Retaliatory laws are not the answer to crime.

Luckily for libertarians they don't have to have practical solutions for anything as they never run and most likely never will any government or society lol
Explosive devices are highly illegal; Boston Marathon ring a bell?
 
Old 10-02-2014, 07:33 PM
 
Location: Buckeye, AZ
38,936 posts, read 23,880,244 times
Reputation: 14125
Quote:
Originally Posted by random_thoughts View Post
No, he's absolutely wrong, the only thing you can do about suicide bombers, and terrorists in general, is neutralize the threat before it materializes and causes a massacre. Waiting for the bombs to explode is not an option. That's why libertarian belief that laws prohibiting citizens from obtaining, making and possessing bombs are immoral is simply absurd. Retaliatory laws are not the answer to crime.

Lucky for libertarians they don't have to have practical solutions for anything as they never run and most likely never will any government or society lol
Suicide bombers are much more random threats than a traditional terrorist is. Traditional terrorists cells we can track (Clinton, Gore and Bush knew of the possibility of 9/11 back in 2000.) A suicide bombing we may very well not know of the threat until boom!
 
Old 10-02-2014, 07:37 PM
 
1,259 posts, read 828,222 times
Reputation: 142
That's right and that's why we have laws against making, obtaining or possessing bombs. It's preemptive, hence in the eyes of libertarians immoral and unjust law yet that's the only way to protect the society, unless you believe that we should just wait for the bombs to go off...





Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk View Post
Suicide bombers are much more random threats than a traditional terrorist is. Traditional terrorists cells we can track (Clinton, Gore and Bush knew of the possibility of 9/11 back in 2000.) A suicide bombing we may very well not know of the threat until boom!
 
Old 10-02-2014, 07:38 PM
 
1,259 posts, read 828,222 times
Reputation: 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kreutz View Post
Explosive devices are highly illegal; Boston Marathon ring a bell?

That's what I said.
 
Old 10-02-2014, 07:45 PM
 
Location: Santa Monica
36,856 posts, read 17,350,188 times
Reputation: 14459
Quote:
Originally Posted by random_thoughts View Post
That's right and that's why we have laws against making, obtaining or possessing bombs. It's preemptive, hence in the eyes of libertarians immoral and unjust law yet that's the only way to protect the society, unless you believe that we should just wait for the bombs to go off...
Urine can be used to make gun powder as well as bombs.

(Hands random_thoughts a knife)

Time to cut off Mr. Happy.
 
Old 10-02-2014, 07:56 PM
 
1,259 posts, read 828,222 times
Reputation: 142
Wow, this comment brought so much into this discussion. This is a typical libertarian answer to any real life problems for which they odnt have an answer. Obviously, its easy for them as liberatarians never run a country or society so never had to come up with practical solutions to anything.


Quote:
Originally Posted by No_Recess View Post
Urine can be used to make gun powder as well as bombs.

(Hands random_thoughts a knife)

Time to cut off Mr. Happy.
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.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top