Frothers Unite! UK

DemonEtrigan wrote:

Steders wrote:'The needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few' and all that

except in this particular discussion most of the things that people are proposing should be regulated are WANTS not NEEDS

Only from the perspective of feeling a populace does not need the right to self-defense and that it's a want. Reasonable is subjective.

Given the subject of cars earlier, from the standpoint of some other society perhaps they'd say people in Western Society should bicycle to work within X miles, that most everyone having a car is wasteful, as car ownership contributes to pollution, and is a leading cause of death through irresponsible behavior and vehicular accidents.

I agree with Tom's points above, especially this:

The problem in the U.S. as I see it is there are two radicalized camps, one which would like to ban guns completely and the other which in reaction resists reasonable regulation because they fear it?s just incrementalism to a ban. We have a history of incremental circumvention of legal principle (e.g. the abuse of the commerce clause) so they unfortunately have grounds to be suspicious.

If you look at my local state legislation above and put yourselves in the shoes of a person who has or plans to have guns, it should be obvious that the legislation is designed as a de facto means to keep guns and ammunition out of the hands of as many people as possible, and also to restrict it to such an extent as to nullify it. When they close down private transactions and online commerce, it will be relatively easy to close down any local gun stores based on small infractions from existing or newer legislation. An interstate commerce ban on guns or restrictions on crossing state lines would seal the deal. Many people who are behind all the new laws are on record as wanting to eliminate all guns, so the only logical position of a gun owner seeking to protect their constitutional rights is to be on the extreme gun ownership position.

And Redzed wins the prize. The answer is indeed the USA.

Democracy is a general concept, an imperfect label. It isn't really how big government/big business works today. Most don't care because they haven't had their rights abused and because it's almost always some other subset of people who should have just been more reasonable. And the rights thus get slowly eroded until people forget what they had.

On the Slate article about gun deaths in America since Newtown, a milestone has just been reached -- a thousand deaths since the mass murder at that school. It's been, what, an entire month?

But I'm sure that has nothing to do with the easy availability of guns in the states, what a crackpot idea. Let's just keep talking about what else is the real cause. Right?

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... oting.html

Goldwyrm wrote:Democracy is a general concept, an imperfect label.

Absolutely agree with you, but the idea that a document written centuries ago in a different age can or should trump it is just as worrying, to me at least.

a thousand deaths since the mass murder at that school.

So assuming the risk is distributed evenly across the population (which it isn?t) you have a 1 in 300,000 chance of dying in any given month? So if you live to be 80 you have a 1 in 300 chance of getting shot.
I could now go on to quote your chances of a dozen other ways of dying but you see the point.

Whenever you hear a statistic on the lines of "?x? happens every three minutes" you know what follows is not an appeal to reason but an attempt to shock and amaze, to get an emotional reaction. It's what journalists do, keeps you coming back for more like Pavlov's bell.

Goldwyrm wrote:

DemonEtrigan wrote:

Steders wrote:'The needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few' and all that

except in this particular discussion most of the things that people are proposing should be regulated are WANTS not NEEDS

Only from the perspective of feeling a populace does not need the right to self-defense and that it's a want. Reasonable is subjective.

humm, nope. I am happy that you can make a sociological argument for the NEED to be able to defend your home - time for police to respond, interlopers being armed themselves, etc. Not a problem - It's not a need i can relate to but i understand there are a number of conditions that create it.

What I am asking you to explain is your NEED for armour piercing ammunition and semi automatic weaponry to do so?

TMeier wrote:

I personally don't agree with their philosophy.

I have been arguing about the argument, saying both sides make sense not putting forth my own view - except that my view is both sides make sense.

Apart from stretching the bounds of credulity to accommodate one, while marginalising the rational arguments of the other, yes, really neutral.

Further example here:

So assuming the risk is distributed evenly across the population (which it isn?t) you have a 1 in 300,000 chance of dying in any given month? So if you live to be 80 you have a 1 in 300 chance of getting shot.
I could now go on to quote your chances of a dozen other ways of dying but you see the point.

1000 deaths in a month, but your personal right to personally bear arms trumps everything?

SaigonSaddler wrote:1000 deaths in a month, but your personal right to personally bear arms trumps everything?

It's actually everyone's right as free individuals. But that's the philosophical position identified earlier.

Colonel Kane wrote:

Goldwyrm wrote:Democracy is a general concept, an imperfect label.

Absolutely agree with you, but the idea that a document written centuries ago in a different age can or should trump it is just as worrying, to me at least.

The idea that you could codify human rights for all time is ridiculous. Human rights are what a society deems them to be at that time, they are not immemorial. In biblical times it was the "right" of every warrior to take the women of his enemy as a slave, to be raped at will. A Bill of Rights written then would have had that as one of the first amendments. I don't see much in the first 10 amendments about the rights of women for instance. If you give a document unchanging status it is no longer a matter of law, it has become a matter of religious doctrine. You lot on the other side of the pond are supposed to keep that out of government if I remember correctly.

Also, the idea that democratic govts. never give up powers they have is fallacious as well. The last 200 years are littered with examples of European (which includes America, whether you like it or not, America, like Australia, is part of the western European cultural evolution, not a stand alone example of anything. You lot might be at one end of the European bell curve in some things, but you are still on it) powers giving up more and more control over their populaces. There have been a few worrying reverses since 2001, but the trend is going in the opposite direction to the one the NWO fearing believe.

Agreed - in fact, being expected to obey a law written so long ago might be seen by some as the ultimate power any government could ever aspire to. Even if a presidential candidate ran on the sole issue of changing the constitution and was elected with that mandate, could it actually be done?

Goldwyrm wrote:

SaigonSaddler wrote:1000 deaths in a month, but your personal right to personally bear arms trumps everything?

It's actually everyone's right as free individuals. But that's the philosophical position identified earlier.

And the 1000 deaths? Collatoral damage for your ability to own big toys?