3 genies and a bottle- guns, abortions, drugs

[thorn]

can any of them be put back in the bottle ?

anti gunners think we can outlaw all guns and they will disappear.

anti druggers think the drug war might actually succeed some day.

anti abortioners think they can put that back in the bottle too.

when will anyone realize these issues are all the same, impossible to stop.

if there is no way you will give up your freedom, how can you expect others to give up theirs??

[The Rabbi]

Is there a purpose to this other than generating inflammatory statements?

[Winston Smith]

You're comparing apples and oranges...

Or more specifically, behaviors and inanimate objects.

Why do we think that we can stop murder, or rape, or tyranny?

I hate fatalism.

[Perd Hapley]

Dear Thorn,

Can you explain the abolition of slavery in various countries?

Or if you think that liberty (or license) somehow just won't be stopped, can you explain why behavior is so heavily regulated in so many parts of the world?

Regarding abortion, I am told that exposure (abandoning unwanted infants, so they would die of cold, hunger and thirst) was eventually outlawed in the Roman Empire.  Isn't this analogous?

[Standing Wolf]

if there is no way you will give up your freedom, how can you expect others to give up theirs??

The people who are attempting to turn America into a socialist hell hole believe their freedom is intrinsically different from that of the commoners: they're the vanguard, the élite, the special exceptions.

[thorn]

i just wonder what the rest of you would think, i should have explained but wanted a few gut reactions first.

this guy i know is totally against guns. well totally non violent, and with guns existing he;s not against rights but would rather see them all go away.

so i say to him sure, you think you can just round up all the guns and make them go away and he says "sure"

and i think he believes that. and then so i say well how cna you think we couldn't also get rid of drugs and make abortion illegal also? "
and his reply was what got me thinking i should see how some of you felt.
"that's genie is out of the bottle"
he and i beleive many , think outlawing some of these things is possible while for others it isnt.

NOW= i do hear some of you, the abortion issue is a bit different, and is comparable to slavery in some respects, regardless, i would have left it out myself but it was part of the original statement by my friend, and i believe this to be too often the liberal mindset.
that drugs and abortion won't go away, but guns will.

lets call it this way= drugs won't go away so should be legalized, but guns should be taken away because we can round them all up and end gun violence.
(let's hold our breath as the idiot liberal mentality has no concept of a gun's usefulness in the hands of a 98 lb woman against a 250 lb man)

so what i am getting at is this = we got two sides at a loggerhead over stupid issues, each thinking they can make the other go away.

we made drugs illegal here, so it is produced clandestine, or smuggled in.

the same would and does hold true for guns.

point being i laughed pretty hard when this guy told me guns could be removed from the earth, but other things couldn't be.

at the same time , so many people seem to think certain drugs can be removed from the world, but no matter what guns will exist. equally laughable. a compelete joke. herb is practically legal in CA already.
then you factor in alcohol, caffeine and nicotine remain legal.

personally i feel if drugs were legal, crime would drop so radically gun laws would become practically irrelevant.
you wouldnt have kids in gangs in turf wars, oine of the biggest killers in CA, and primary reason for many of our laws- when a young idiot shoots someone here, even if the shooting wasn't drug dealing related, you can bet his ownership of a gun is.
it is incredibly obvious gun control does very little to stop crime, and does nothing but scare the public.

why can't anyone agree to some sort of trade off. realize we got 2 losing battles, call it a tie.

[Jamisjockey]

Is there a purpose to this other than generating inflammatory statements?

Nope, I don't think there is.  He's looking to stir the pot.

[Werewolf]

He's looking to stir the pot.

AND...

Isn't that - ultimately - what participation in any Internet Forum is all about?

[jefnvk]

Drugs and guns will never go away.  Anyone with some basic chemical and machining knowledge can make either.

Abortions will probably never go away, either.  There will always be backalley abortions, beating the woman in the stomach, etc.

[Werewolf]

^^^^
jefnvk is absolutely correct.

[preaching to the choir]
Human beings will acquire what ever goods and services they desire at whatever price they deem provides value for cost. The only thing making a good or service illegal does is to raise the price by decreasing the number of suppliers. That prices some folks out of the market for sure but also makes it so that those who want the good bad enough but don't have the price commit other crimes to get the price.

Making goods and services illegal also insures that government gets to hire more enforcers to enforce the laws that make things illegal.

It's not about crime or morality - it's all about control. You can't control an honest man as someone said (Ayn Rand???)
[/preaching to the choir]

[Guest]

Most laws are just transparent excuses for the protection-racket state to jail, surveil, "protect", and tax us and provide government jobs for voters and their families. The state creates the crime. The only agreements a society needs to be civilized is 1) to not encroach on other persons or their property and 2) do all you have agreed to do. (Maybury)

 Beyond that, virtually all laws create phony crimes requiring more money, cops and courts. Examples: money laundering, prostitution, gambling, self-medicating, tax evasion, drunk-driving, possession of "X" for sale, etc.

 All laws prohibiting the possession of common objects should be repealed.

 All laws prohibiting behavior that does no direct harm to others should be repealed.
 
As jefnvk pointed out, the guns genie is "out of the bottle". They are very low-tech.

 As to real crime, it will never go away, but that doesn't mean that harmed persons aren't due restitution.

[thorn]

nice, some of you are getting the point.

typical the people who think some of this stuff can be made to go away think i am just stirring a pot.

i am trying to get people to come to a compromise

[Perd Hapley]

Unnecessary laws to control our behavior will never go away.  Let's make no effort to stop them.

Me so funny and profound.

[Antibubba]

The problem is agreeing on what behaviors cause no harm to others.

Those who fear guns see even a target pistol as a detriment to society, by promoting shooting as a safe and enjoyable activity that harms no one.  After all, guns kill people.

Those that oppose drugs have been convinced that just trying a drug-any street drug-one time will lead the purest person to commit degrading sex acts and atrocities.

And since we cannot agree on the definition of human life and when it begins, what one person considers the disposal of unwanted tissue is cold-blooded murder to another.

And let us not forget the Christian concept of "saving the soul".  Isn't it better to constrain someone's personal freedom to commit self-destructive behavior if it will prevent eternal damnation?  If removing the existence of temptation sees more people to heaven, then restricting the rights of adults to do as they please isn't really a restriction, it's actually an expansion of freedom.  (I don't think Orwell was alluding just to government in 1984.)


But if you can get people to agree on make constitutes "direct harm", then...

[Perd Hapley]

And since we cannot agree on the definition of human life and when it begins

then how can we have laws against murder?

[Antibubba]

Because we agree that a life outside the womb is human.  The law distinguishes between abortion and infanticide.

[Perd Hapley]

then how can we have laws against murder?

Because we agree that a life outside the womb is human.

Who does?  The Netherlands is practising involuntary euthanasia.  Why don't we?  If we stop agreeing that life outside the womb is human, will we stop protecting other types of human life?  In any case, everyone agrees that fetuses are human.  It is now supposed that they are not "persons."

The Supreme Court abandoned its duty in Roe v Wade, when it said, "We don't know what life is, so you will have to decide for yourself."  How can they decide murder cases when they don't know what life is?

How many laws will we repeal, just because some people disagree with them?  By this standard, slavery should never have been banned.

[Antibubba]

All of which is my point.   We cannot agree on what behaviors affect only ourselves.  And we cannot let the behavior of others go by without attempting to "correct" it.

[Perd Hapley]

That's your point?  You didn't make it very clearly, if at all.

[Justin]

By this standard, slavery should never have been banned.

Red herring.  In the case of slavery, there is a very real victim of the crime being committed.  The same could be said for involuntary euthanasia and (depending on your view) abortion.

[Justin]

We cannot agree on what behaviors affect only ourselves.

But isn't this belief predicated on buying into the culture of victimhood?

[Perd Hapley]

Red herring.  In the case of slavery, there is a very real victim of the crime being committed.  The same could be said for involuntary euthanasia and (depending on your view) abortion.

So it's a red herring from your point of view, but not mine?  Funny way to argue.

A fetus, an embryo, a zygote, a blastocyst; whatever we choose to call it, to say that it is not a "very real victim" is to reject all we have learned about preborn life with the aid of modern medical technology.  The tools that tell us about the child's heartbeat, brain activity, sensation of pain, and so on.  It is akin to Ron Reagan, Jr.'s rant about embryonic stem cells.  Mr. Reagan's reasoning was that "it doesn't look or act human, therefore it's a lower form of life we can exploit for our ends."  Well, that has been said about a lot of people in the past few-hundred years - Africans, Aborigines, etc.  This reasoning rejects the DNA molecule, that tells us this form of life is human, and unique from its mother, or any other specimen.  It rejects the only bright line we have to mark the beginning of a new life - conception.  Implantation, viability, birth; none of these make any sense as indicators of the beginning of life.  

I suppose when you say, "very real victim," you mean one that can be seen and heard, and empathized with.  In effect, if the victim's plight doesn't tug at my heart-strings, then he can be ignored.  Again, we are left with the same subjectivism as Roe v. Wade - laws based on feelings, guesses, and public perception.  No thank you.

[thorn]

ARGH! i should have left this 2 genies. abortion is way too complicated.

[Perd Hapley]

You grow in wisdom, child.


Boot to the head!

[Strings]

I've always tried to adopt a libertarian view: if it doesn't directly harm someone else, there should be no law against it. Let's run a few down:

-You want to own guns? Fine... just owning (even carrying) doesn't hurt anyone...

-You want to smoke (be it tobacco or marijuana)? Fine... just doing so doesn't hurt others
 *And let's stop the "second hand smoke" debate, or the "operating a vehicle while under the influence" issue (there're laws against that, and they make sense)...*

-You want to hire a prostitute? Well... she's setting the price, and it isn't causing anyone harm...
 *This is assuming someone who decides to work as a prostitute on their own, not something that's forced...*

 Nice and easy, right? Abortion is the one issue (to me) that is impossible to solve using this reasoning: you can argue "infringment" either way (allowing abortion infringes the child, outlawing it infringes the woman)...