[karajorma]

See ...some of us believe, that you can't have safety and peace by removing rights of the people, any people. Now mind you I am talking about rights and not privledges here, big difference there.

But except for the constitution (which as I've already said you have to justify) how is owning a gun a right? And where would you draw the line between a right to arm yourself and a privilege? Automatics? Grenades? A bazooka? Nukes?

Just recently here in VA they decided on the non-smoking ban in all resturants and bars, regardless of owner's choice. Now I'm completely fine with a non-smoking place, and matter of fact most places my wife and I eat at are already non-smoking and if not I sit in non-smoking anyways.  But it should be that buisness' right to decide which kind of customer base they wish to serve. If you don't like smokers at while you eat,...then you don't go to a place that allows smoking. Ultimately the costumers, by simle matter of which places get buisness and manage to survive, will decide which is best. It should never be forced on a buisness/person.

Okay. Now let's take this away from smoking for a second. Suppose I own a chemical company. I decide to be lax with my health and safety rules to save money. I hire cheap labour and get them to sign a waiver to prevent them suing me for health problems caused by the toxins they are working with.

Do you honestly think the government shouldn't step in to stop me exploiting the poor in this way? As an employer I owe my workers a duty of care. If I fail to do so, the government should be stepping in and making me pay for it.

So now look at a bar. I'm hiring largely unskilled workers and asking them to work in a work environment which is very heavily laced with carcinogens. How is the situation any different?

People like to claim that smoking bans should be entirely up to the owner/clients and completely forget that there are a third set of people there who don't have much of a choice. So what are you going to do? Tell non-smokers that they can't work in bars? Tell them that had they worked in a chemical plant they would have a legal recourse to complain about exposure to lower amounts of toxins but since they work in a bar it's tough luck? The easiest way is to simply say no smoking at all. It has a side benefit of helping out patrons who like bars but can't stand smoke too but that's not why the ban exists.

Transfat ban. You know, maybe I WANT to eat some trans fatty foods at one time or another. It's my right. Yes make them state which food as which/how much in it. But it should be for the person eating to decide. If they get all fat and unhealthy....they have medical insurance and it'll go up more do to poor health. Let them make the call and deal with it. I do not need my government to "look out and protect me from myself."

That on the other hand is ridiculous.

[Inquisitor]

If Americans here were willing to give up a couple of freedoms for the greater good and make things not so available, there would be less crime.

Must...not...Godwin...myself...

You, my young friend, are kinda creepy.

[TrashMan]

I find myself agreeing with High Max on mostly everything he said.

[Inquisitor]

That's not reducing the creepy factor

[Warlock]

See ...some of us believe, that you can't have safety and peace by removing rights of the people, any people. Now mind you I am talking about rights and not privledges here, big difference there.

But except for the constitution (which as I've already said you have to justify) how is owning a gun a right? And where would you draw the line between a right to arm yourself and a privilege? Automatics? Grenades? A bazooka? Nukes?

I'm talking about firearms in general since the debate has,...basically,...been about having firearms or having none at all. Why do I have to justify the consitution to you? It's design was solely to protect not to grant a thing. But if I must, one of the core elements of the 2nd Amend. Protecting that right was not only to allow persons to defend themselves, family, and home, as well as to form a Miltia if needed, but also in case of government corruption. Think about the events that lead to the US Constitution being written. We had just won our freedom from a (then) oppressive government. By allowing the citizens to be protected from the Gov denying them the right to own and bear arms, they insured that the Gov would always have to maintane a balance understanding that the people would be able to raise up and remove them if needed.

Now you'll likely ask how this has to be about a gun. Simple. Does a bat defend against a gun? Or a knife? No. It's about simple basics of the people having a similar means as the gov.

Now please keep in mind this is how I percieve it, I am not a member of the Gov, nor am I a continuing student of Law, the Constitution or anything else related. Feel free to debunk everything I say by googling things to your hearts content

Just recently here in VA they decided on the non-smoking ban in all resturants and bars, regardless of owner's choice. Now I'm completely fine with a non-smoking place, and matter of fact most places my wife and I eat at are already non-smoking and if not I sit in non-smoking anyways.  But it should be that buisness' right to decide which kind of customer base they wish to serve. If you don't like smokers at while you eat,...then you don't go to a place that allows smoking. Ultimately the costumers, by simle matter of which places get buisness and manage to survive, will decide which is best. It should never be forced on a buisness/person.

Okay. Now let's take this away from smoking for a second. Suppose I own a chemical company. I decide to be lax with my health and safety rules to save money. I hire cheap labour and get them to sign a waiver to prevent them suing me for health problems caused by the toxins they are working with.

Do you honestly think the government shouldn't step in to stop me exploiting the poor in this way? As an employer I owe my workers a duty of care. If I fail to do so, the government should be stepping in and making me pay for it.

So now look at a bar. I'm hiring largely unskilled workers and asking them to work in a work environment which is very heavily laced with carcinogens. How is the situation any different?

People like to claim that smoking bans should be entirely up to the owner/clients and completely forget that there are a third set of people there who don't have much of a choice. So what are you going to do? Tell non-smokers that they can't work in bars? Tell them that had they worked in a chemical plant they would have a legal recourse to complain about exposure to lower amounts of toxins but since they work in a bar it's tough luck? The easiest way is to simply say no smoking at all. It has a side benefit of helping out patrons who like bars but can't stand smoke too but that's not why the ban exists.

Well for one you couldn't "Have them sign a wavier against sueing you. You can't sign away your rights. Already been proven in numerous court cases, google's ---> that way if needed.

Now as for hiring largely unskilled workers, yup, you don't HAVE to take that job at the bar that allows smoking, take a job at the bar across the street that doesn't. See here's the catch. IF Bar 1 allows smoking, Bar 2 doesn't. Factor in the number of "Barflies" that smoke in the area vs the number that do not smoke, now factor in the number of bar workers that smoke and/or are willing(yes willing) to work in a smoking bar with those who are not.
If the customers and employment bases prefer Bar 2, Bar 1 will not be able to maintain profit and/or employment.

Yet, now we flip things. The customer base in the area mostly smoke. Now most smokers will do so while drinking, and most bars do not either allow or have easy means of leaving and reentering, especially those that charge a cover charge. These customers now stay home on Fri and Sat nights and drink and smoke while watching TV. Bar 1 goes out of buisness due to the Gov mandated non-smoking ban. Or do we just toss them a "stimulus" pack as well?

Transfat ban. You know, maybe I WANT to eat some trans fatty foods at one time or another. It's my right. Yes make them state which food as which/how much in it. But it should be for the person eating to decide. If they get all fat and unhealthy....they have medical insurance and it'll go up more do to poor health. Let them make the call and deal with it. I do not need my government to "look out and protect me from myself."

That on the other hand is ridiculous.

Only if you're a health minded person. But let me ask this,....where does it stop? Well Transfat are bad for you, now banned. Oops look at that, high sugar content makes you fat too, well can't have that, limit the amount used in food. Oh damn, we just found out people that drink of coffee are prone to anxiety, well can't have a bunch of nervous people about the world, coffee's out too.

Oh .....computer games that have violence cause highschooler's to go on mass murdering rampages.....enjoy the new full 1080P version of Pong!!

[Scotty]

I'm an exception, however

Yeah, and everyone else is being stubborn and pig-headded. 

The problem is most Americans are so obsessed with freedom that they don't want more rules for more safety and peace and lack discipline and true self respect (not trying to live a healthy lifestyle on average, for example).

First of all, your opinion right there.  Secondly, who the f*ck cares?  Just because someone doesn't live up to your own personal ideals of self-respect doesn't mean that they have thrown it out the window.  Talk about forcing your morals on someone else.

my diet is completely different than my family's in most ways (healthier)

Does not matter at all to the discussion.

And the funny thing is that USA may be depicted by foreigners to be some sort of utopia saying that Americans are so happy (but that isn't so much the truth. I can tell), but once they get here, many of them are surprised to find that many Americans kill each other and the families here aren't as tight.

Their view of my country doesn't affect me, nor does it automatically mean it is true.  I for one am very happy living in the U.S.  Also, people kill each other everywhere else too.  Go ask the middle east about that.  If they are surprised, their problem.

And you say "we" like thinking all Americans feel that way

And you say "you" like every other thinking American feels that way.

USA is not right, it is too arrogant, though people here say it is always right and has the so-called best quality of life. Haha, that makes me smile but also makes me feel anger. I could name maybe more than 10 ways it isn't right here or the best quality of life. But that is not for this thread. All I can say is that someday its way of thinking will destroy it. Either that or it will merge with a global government

Who cares?  Not the point of the discussion, nor a fact. 

If Americans here were willing to give up a couple of freedoms for the greater good and make things not so available, there would be less crime. That sounds simpler. Logic tells me that the reason the USA has one of the highest crime rights is because of too much freedom and a rude corrupt culture to boot.

 

Logic should tell you that the USA has one of the highest crime rates because it is one of the most culturally diverse countries in the world.  Some cultures don't get along well with others.  Also, some people are just plain bat**** crazy, or have logically deduced (argument on this earlier) that crime is the best way to raise their status.

Besides, what do you define as the greater good?  The good for the majority, or the good for those in power?  And how does taking away the right to defend one's self relate to less crime?

saying all Arabs are terrorists is stupid

Sure as hell is.  The radical minority is. 

What is more important, keeping a right or keeping your love one safer?

In this case, it is fortunate that keeping a right is keeping your loved one safer.

Oh yeah, that brings up something I like to say and have said many times in the past: That is ridiculous that we worry too much about the population of other animals when we should worry about our own population first. But people want the right to have as many kids as possible (that may destroy humanity someday since food and resourses may run out) and then we say the animals are the problem. We are the problem. The part that bothers me is we are the problem but we say they are.

   What the f*ck is this?  People shouldn't have to want the right to have kids.  When did animals get brought into that issue.  It has no relation what...so...ever.]

I'm just saying it is blind if you mindlessly be patriotic and follow other influences just because USA and its citizens say that the way the culture thinks is how you should think and act and says doing this and that is cool.

Why is it that you can't seem to wrap your head around the fact that I don't think what I think because everyone else does?  I have repeatedly said that I have deliberated at length and decided that my choice is the best one for me.  My own personal belief is "WHO CARES what the rest of the world or country thinks?"  I have decided my own ideals.

Another example is saying that Chinese kill babies who are girls because they only want boys, but I don't believe that. Of course they abort but many countries do, even here.

Chinese Infanticide Statistics
Honestly, a lot of that stuff is made up, but not all, and you can't just summarily dismiss everything like that.

But except for the constitution

Pretty damn big exception, right there. 

And where would you draw the line between a right to arm yourself and a privilege? Automatics? Grenades? A bazooka? Nukes?

I believe that I already stated my view on this.  Line drawn on explosives and vehicle mounted/emplaced weapons.

Do you honestly think the government shouldn't step in to stop me exploiting the poor in this way?

Someone can only be exploited like that with their express co-operation.  If it was such a bad problem, people would quit, and you would be forced to wage prices and increase safety standards to be able to hire anyone.  That is what should determine wages in a capitalistic society.  Not some OPed Union or the government.

But let me ask this,....where does it stop?

When everyone only eats or drinks water, tofu and organically grown vegetables that have never seen anything remotely artificial, as well as only being able to walk to work or school.

[Warlock]

I'm just saying it is blind if you mindlessly be patriotic and follow other influences just because USA and its citizens say that the way the culture thinks is how you should think and act and says doing this and that is cool.

Why is it that you can't seem to wrap your head around the fact that I don't think what I think because everyone else does?  I have repeatedly said that I have deliberated at length and decided that my choice is the best one for me.  My own personal belief is "WHO CARES what the rest of the world or country thinks?"  I have decided my own ideals.

Wow imagine that!! People can form their own opinion that is completely the opposite of someone elses all on their own!!



Probably why the whole lable "gun nut" for anyone pro right to bear annoys the piss out of me Every single person has their own reasons for their belief, good or bad. Thou some sad lot just follow which ever media outlet has the cuter gal/guy for them. 

[General Battuta]

Well, actually...your political attitudes are at least some part genetic, and the rest comes from your environment.

You'd be a very different creature if you were raised somewhere else.

So yes, your beliefs actually do come from what everyone tells you to believe. As do everyone else's.

[Warlock]

Because life experience and generally reading and learning on one's own is completely meaningless?

I'll agree that some of one's belief is attributed to what they are told from others. But not all.

For example I'm very different than my father in of areas. Growing up, he was fairly racist as a sad fact of his upbringing and age. I however had managed to keep from seeing every darkskinned person as a *insert word*  and seeing them as a person. In fact by having several best friends of different races I like to think I at least managed to get my father just a bit farther down the road on the issue.


Granted that is merely an example of difference from what you're raised to believe. Not a thread topic change

And oh course I'd be a different creature if I was born somewhere else. Then I wouldn't have had any of the experiences that have made me what I am today.

[General Battuta]

Because life experience and generally reading and learning on one's own is completely meaningless?

I'll agree that some of one's belief is attributed to what they are told from others. But not all.

For example I'm very different than my father in of areas. Growing up, he was fairly racist as a sad fact of his upbringing and age. I however had managed to keep from seeing every darkskinned person as a *insert word*  and seeing them as a person. In fact by having several best friends of different races I like to think I at least managed to get my father just a bit farther down the road on the issue.


Granted that is merely an example of difference from what you're raised to believe. Not a thread topic change

And oh course I'd be a different creature if I was born somewhere else. Then I wouldn't have had any of the experiences that have made me what I am today.

At a basic level your political conservatism is about 60% heritable. This doesn't assert itself until after age 20, and conservatism expresses itself differently based on the environment (you're unlikely to turn out racist), for example.

But odds are you'll find yourself slightly more than halfway akin to your father. (A bit of an exaggeration, but close enough.)

Because life experience and generally reading and learning on one's own is completely meaningless?

My friend, those are just other ways of being told what to think.

[Warlock]

Ummmm ....being 35 I think I've already passed that benchmark

[General Battuta]

No.

[Hellstryker]

Off topic but a reply to the above:

I'm saying freedom is good, but too much is not. Like most things in life, if you don't have a balance, you have more problems, and to minimize the problems, balance is needed. Also, there are different types of freedom. For example, freedom of speech, freedom of travel, freedom of education, etc. Every country has freedom to a certain extent, but the amount and the type of freedom varies.

I'm just saying it is blind if you mindlessly be patriotic and follow other influences just because USA and its citizens say that the way the culture thinks is how you should think and act and says doing this and that is cool. Maybe you missed that part. I'm not talking about being blind if one doesn't follow my views; I'm talking about the many people who are blindly patriotic and give into influences and lifestyles here like they are brainwashed and can't think for themselves or resist it and are scared that if they don't do what others do, they will be an outcast. But if I had only the choice of being an outcast or fitting in with others I feel are bad, I would choose outcast. Often times, these people don't want to learn about other cultures and countries and their ways and don't want to research a lot. They may like it more in certain countries if they learned about them and met people from there more. They don't think outside the box which is the USA. I'm talking about the majority here; not everyone. It is sad.

Another thing that I don't like is many people in this country misunderstand other cultures or exaggerate about them or believe false things about these other countries or cultures. For example, saying all Arabs are terrorists is stupid. There culture is actually about peace. It is the small minority of the Arabs who are terrorists. But people here are brainwashed into thinking they all are. I hate that. Another example is saying that Chinese kill babies who are girls because they only want boys, but I don't believe that. Of course they abort but many countries do, even here. China is one of the countries that has the most females compared to males ratio in the world. The population there consists of more females than males. That is one reason it is hard for a Chinese man to find a wife there or maybe hard for a woman to find a husband there. In their culture, similar to VN, they want a son, but they don't kill it if it is a daughter as evident of what I said above. The son is to pass on the family's name and it has to do with filial peity and I'm sure many other countries think that way.

USA may have been yanking some rights away, but they are also adding some new ones, it seems. However, I don't feel like certain rights have been yanked even if some have. I feel free.

And here are the Europeans saying we all do drugs and kill each other rampantly, yet you ignore them 

[Liberator]

I think it's more publicized here, what with the 25h/8d news cycle

One thing America doesn't do well, and I've said this before, is the handling and treatment of mental health.  There are no asylums in America any more, not public ones anyway.  All the public ones were unceremoniously closed and the occupants turned out into the street about 35 years ago.  There was a corresponding rise in both crime and homelessness.

A fair portion of the homeless are not in a condition mentally to be allowed to walk around, there are many cases of extreme schizophrenia and other severe mental illness that remain treatable only with heavy doses of amphetimines or suppression through heavy narcotics.

[General Battuta]

Well it does seem that USA has more of the psychopaths and crazy people killing in odd ways than any other country. Do they? Like for example, the chain saw massacre and all these school shootings. Gothic female killers killing for blood and drinking it. Watch the Discovery ID channel. The sheer amount of odd balls like that and incidents. What other country has things like people who do chain saw massacres and being cannibalistic to their victims and many school shootings and bombs in schools and things to those extremes and with that number of crazy people and actions like here? And those are all internal problems here. Whenever I hear about crazy serial killers and stuff, most of them seem to be from here. Why? The real problem seems to originate internally, not internationally, though society here tries to make people think it is mostly internationally. The real threat to Americans seems to mostly be from within the country.

OH MY GOD THE LUNACY

Dude. You cannot make these assertions without DATA. Your anecdotal evidence means nothing.

[Janos]

Or maybe you can save me the time and look up chain saw massacre and other things, or must I bother... Fine....here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_serial_killers_by_country#United_States_of_America. I just looked through it and under USA, I see the longest list of serial killers and all the other countries listed have a much smaller list. You will also notice that China has a small list. What does that tell you about safety and polite culture? Many countries listed have a small list but uk is quite a bit larger than I expected.

hmmmmm china and reported murders hmm this statistic sounds GREAT

[karajorma]

I'm talking about firearms in general since the debate has,...basically,...been about having firearms or having none at all. Why do I have to justify the consitution to you?

Because the constitution was written over 200 years ago. If you're saying that you do not need to prove that it is still valid today then you raise it from simply being a legal document to a holy work, written by an infallible source. If you want to claim "The constitution gives me the right to bear arms" you have to justify why it gives you that right. Otherwise once something is in the constitution it would be there forever. And the repeal of prohibition shows that isn't the case.

But if I must, one of the core elements of the 2nd Amend. Protecting that right was not only to allow persons to defend themselves, family, and home, as well as to form a Miltia if needed, but also in case of government corruption. Think about the events that lead to the US Constitution being written. We had just won our freedom from a (then) oppressive government. By allowing the citizens to be protected from the Gov denying them the right to own and bear arms, they insured that the Gov would always have to maintane a balance understanding that the people would be able to raise up and remove them if needed.

Now you'll likely ask how this has to be about a gun. Simple. Does a bat defend against a gun? Or a knife? No. It's about simple basics of the people having a similar means as the gov.

But you aren't similar. The government has tanks, airplanes and nuclear weapons. You're not going to get very far rising up against the government with handguns and anyone who thinks that they are has been watching Red Dawn far too much.

Besides as has already been brought up on this thread it's very doubtful that there would be any kind of armed revolution until it was far too late. Bush was arguably the most dictatorial president America has had for a while, passing laws like the Patriot act and bringing in agencies with Orwellian names like Homeland Security yet the people with the guns loved him. I very much doubt that anything would happen. Dictators do not seize power, that's just what the people claim later. Dictators are given power by the people who only realise that it was a bad idea once they are too scared to actually do anything about it. Having guns won't help you by that point.

Well for one you couldn't "Have them sign a wavier against sueing you. You can't sign away your rights. Already been proven in numerous court cases, google's ---> that way if needed.

So you're saying that non-smokers who work in a bar can sue their employer if they develop lung cancer? If they can't then what is the difference from saying that people who worked in an unsafe chemical factory chose to do so and therefore can't sue. If they can, then you've opened a massive can of worms.

Now as for hiring largely unskilled workers, yup, you don't HAVE to take that job at the bar that allows smoking, take a job at the bar across the street that doesn't. See here's the catch. IF Bar 1 allows smoking, Bar 2 doesn't. Factor in the number of "Barflies" that smoke in the area vs the number that do not smoke, now factor in the number of bar workers that smoke and/or are willing(yes willing) to work in a smoking bar with those who are not.
If the customers and employment bases prefer Bar 2, Bar 1 will not be able to maintain profit and/or employment.

I can make the same argument about my chemical factories though. The fact that I don't have to pay pensions cause all my workers are dropping dead at an early age, plus my shoddy health and safety practices mean that I can undercut my competition pretty easily. No one has to buy chemicals from my company they can go to a company with a good safety record if they want. We can let the market decide whether my customers want good safety practices or not. 

Yet, now we flip things. The customer base in the area mostly smoke. Now most smokers will do so while drinking, and most bars do not either allow or have easy means of leaving and reentering, especially those that charge a cover charge. These customers now stay home on Fri and Sat nights and drink and smoke while watching TV. Bar 1 goes out of buisness due to the Gov mandated non-smoking ban. Or do we just toss them a "stimulus" pack as well?

Except that hasn't happened has it? It's a common ploy to claim that smoking bans reduce the number of people going to bars but I've not heard any evidence of that. People like to drink and smokers are already used to not being able to light up whenever they want. Pubs and bars in London are still just as busy after we brought in a smoking ban.

Well Transfat are bad for you, now banned. Oops look at that, high sugar content makes you fat too, well can't have that, limit the amount used in food. Oh damn, we just found out people that drink of coffee are prone to anxiety, well can't have a bunch of nervous people about the world, coffee's out too.

Like I said. It's ridiculous.

[Inquisitor]

@High Max: no, it doesn't make anyone think twice about confronting you, it makes me want to confront you more. We do give up freedoms for the sake of safety and security. Freedom is not something that gives you carte blanche to do whatever you want. You can't yell fire in a theatre, you can't take the running car because you think its pretty, Law defines what you can't do. What freedoms, besides the right to carry a weapon, would you have us surrender? The right to assembly perhaps?



Just curious where it stops in your mind?

That's what you get when you start down that proverbial slippery slope. And for better or worse, that's one of the things that the 2nd amendment helps guard against. But only one of them.

@kara: What about my reasons?

[Flipside]

The problem for me is that, whilst I do agree that guns don't kill people, people do (though, admittedly, very often with guns), I just don't think the problem is the guns themselves, it's the teaching of responsible use. Because guns are incredibly common in the US, a certain percentage of people don't consider them with the respect they deserve as objects designed to kill.

It's odd, people will treat kitchen knives and boiling pans of water as though they were primed dynamite, especially when children are around, and yet will also leave the gun cabinet unlocked and the ammo in the cabinet with the guns. It's not the guns that are really the problem, it's people being responsible with them, and that's something that is a lot harder to teach, when you are angry and you have a means for getting 'revenge' there will always be those who take that option.

[General Battuta]

Or maybe you can save me the time and look up chain saw massacre and other things, or must I bother... Fine....here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_serial_killers_by_country#United_States_of_America. I just looked through it and under USA, I see the longest list of serial killers and all the other countries listed have a much smaller list. You will also notice that China has a small list. What does that tell you about safety and polite culture? Many countries listed have a small list but uk is quite a bit larger than I expected.

You're intelligent, right? Do you know about the scientific method?

The reason the USA has the biggest list is because it a) has the most active media, b) has the most Wikipedia users, c) has an excellent criminal justice system. You have no reason to believe that this article is a representative sample of murders around the world.

Use science. SCIENCE.