Author Topic: Gun owner hypocrisy that needs to stop  (Read 12779 times)

Paddy

  • Guest
Gun owner hypocrisy that needs to stop
« Reply #50 on: December 03, 2005, 02:15:20 PM »
Quote
atek3 wrote:America is a rich country, our buildings survive quakes because we're rich, not because the government mandates that carpenters get paid prevailing wage and the littlest addition to your property requires government approval.
Wrong. The 'police power' that enforces building codes has nothing to do with 'prevailing wage' clauses in building contracts.  The code applies whether or not union carpenters build it.
and
Quote
You really ought to visit colleges, Stanford and UC-Berkeley in particular.  I'd say somewhere between a third and a half of the students there have tried drugs.  And the vast majority get a little older and pick up more interesting hobbies and quit.
And known former coke and potheads have been elected POTUS, so I guess that means legalization is a good idea.

cordex

  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,006
Gun owner hypocrisy that needs to stop
« Reply #51 on: December 03, 2005, 03:06:57 PM »
Quote
Are you being disinegenuous or are you not taking a position in this debate?
No, I wasn't being disingenuous at all.  You asked me what would convince me that my point of view was incorrect.

My position on the drug issue is derived from my beliefs that a person should be responsible for what they choose to do to themselves and that if a person chooses to harm themselves, that must be their choice to make in a free society.  I have no love for recreational drugs - legal or illegal, but I don't feel that banning drugs is the right thing to do.  It is inconsistent with the concept of personal freedom.

Abuse of drugs - whether legal or illegal - is a bad thing.  An awful thing.  But banning them doesn't provide a solution, it just says that members of the American public is incapable of making responsible decisions for themselves and therefore the responsibility is transferred to the government.

If currently illegal drugs were made legal, some people would destroy their lives just as people destroy their lives today.  Undoubtably more would make that choice.  Regrettable, but it must be a choice that a free adult be able to make.

The Rabbi

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,435
  • "Ahh, Jeez. Not this sh*t again!"
Gun owner hypocrisy that needs to stop
« Reply #52 on: December 03, 2005, 03:56:12 PM »
Quote from: cordex
Quote
Are you being disinegenuous or are you not taking a position in this debate?
No, I wasn't being disingenuous at all.  You asked me what would convince me that my point of view was incorrect.

My position on the drug issue is derived from my beliefs that a person should be responsible for what they choose to do to themselves and that if a person chooses to harm themselves, that must be their choice to make in a free society.  I have no love for recreational drugs - legal or illegal, but I don't feel that banning drugs is the right thing to do.  It is inconsistent with the concept of personal freedom.

Abuse of drugs - whether legal or illegal - is a bad thing.  An awful thing.  But banning them doesn't provide a solution, it just says that members of the American public is incapable of making responsible decisions for themselves and therefore the responsibility is transferred to the government.

If currently illegal drugs were made legal, some people would destroy their lives just as people destroy their lives today.  Undoubtably more would make that choice.  Regrettable, but it must be a choice that a free adult be able to make.
So what would persuade you that your position is wrong?
Fight state-sponsored Islamic terrorism: Bomb France now!

Vote Libertarian: It Not Like It Matters Anyway.

Sindawe

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,938
  • Vashneesht
Gun owner hypocrisy that needs to stop
« Reply #53 on: December 03, 2005, 07:20:17 PM »
Quote
People against it invariably invoke the "pipe-head" a half-crazed spectre ready to murder for his next fix.  Who could be in favor of that, if that is what we mean?
I see you've taken to quoting yourself again Rabbi.
I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.

cordex

  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,006
Gun owner hypocrisy that needs to stop
« Reply #54 on: December 04, 2005, 07:32:24 AM »
Quote
So what would persuade you that your position is wrong?
I'd need to be persuaded that:
1. An adult should not be responsible for their own body.
2. The bodies of adults in our society are or should be owned by our government and thus are not the property of the individual to harm, improve or use as they wish.
3. That a society which condemns even moderate use of some recreational drugs but allows and encourages the use of other, similarly destructive recreational drugs is sane enough to entrust with the ownership and control of its members.

The Rabbi

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,435
  • "Ahh, Jeez. Not this sh*t again!"
Gun owner hypocrisy that needs to stop
« Reply #55 on: December 04, 2005, 07:47:42 AM »
Quote from: cordex
Quote
So what would persuade you that your position is wrong?
I'd need to be persuaded that:
1. An adult should not be responsible for their[sic] own body.
2. The bodies of adults in our society are or should be owned by our government and thus are not the property of the individual to harm, improve or use as they wish.
3. That a society which condemns even moderate use of some recreational drugs but allows and encourages the use of other, similarly destructive recreational drugs is sane enough to entrust with the ownership and control of its members.
OK.

1) Ideally everyone "should" be responsible for his actions.  In real life though this is seldom achieved.  Most people are irresponsible to greater or lesser degrees and for 90%+ of the time it makes no difference and actually helps keep people employed in health care, law enforcement, and other fields.
But what about when someone simply bombs out big time?  When their actions are dangerous to themselves and others?  When people become aged and demented we have a system of conservatorship to take care of such people, and in the last resort it is the state through its agencies that serves that function.  So, yes, ideally everyone ought to be responsible but in practice where this is impossible the state takes an interest and ultimately steps in as responsible party of the last resort.
2.  Your person is subject to laws of the government.  If you drive recklessly through a school zone at 100mph you will go to jail, making your body subject to gov't standards of care.  If the gov't deems your services critical enough it has the power to draft you and remove you from your home and surroundings.  In everyday circumstances we do not consider this power because it is not in the gov't's interest to detain people for no reason but the power remains there.  So ultimately you could say that in fact your body is not yours in an unrestricted way.
3. This standard is incomprehensible.  You are confusing and confuting society with government.  Society does not make laws, gov't does.  I do not know what "sanity" entails as a standard of society.  On tthat standard there has never been a "sane" society.

Are you persuaded now?
Fight state-sponsored Islamic terrorism: Bomb France now!

Vote Libertarian: It Not Like It Matters Anyway.

cordex

  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,006
Gun owner hypocrisy that needs to stop
« Reply #56 on: December 04, 2005, 04:01:12 PM »
Quote
1) Ideally everyone "should" be responsible for his actions.  In real life though this is seldom achieved.  Most people are irresponsible to greater or lesser degrees and for 90%+ of the time it makes no difference and actually helps keep people employed in health care, law enforcement, and other fields.
But what about when someone simply bombs out big time?  When their actions are dangerous to themselves and others?  When people become aged and demented we have a system of conservatorship to take care of such people, and in the last resort it is the state through its agencies that serves that function.  So, yes, ideally everyone ought to be responsible but in practice where this is impossible the state takes an interest and ultimately steps in as responsible party of the last resort.
Sounds awful sweet, but we all know that benevolant nanny-government doesn't exist the way you imply it does.  Insane people and the elderly are rarely placed in government care unless they violate laws that would cause you or I to be arrested.  The state-run conservatorship is far more limited than you think it is ... except in regards to a few plants and chemicals.

Our government lets people drink themselves to death every day and only interferes when they endanger others (driving intoxicated, getting in fights when drunk, etc).  This is how it should be with other drugs - even if they are equally or more harmful to the user than currently legal drugs are.  

Additionally, the threshold for when someone "bombs out big time" and when their "actions are dangerous to themselves and others" is inconsistent; nay, downright meaningless.  Someone eating a "special" brownie and vegging out on a couch, or chewing a handful of coca leaves for a little rush, or eating some peyote may be arrested and imprisoned whether their actions are harmful to themselves and/or others or not.  (Exceptions are made for Indian tribes who claim peyote as a religious tool, of course.)  On the other hand, it is entirely lawful for a bunch of 21 year old college kids to get drunk out of their minds and have promiscuous, unprotected sex.  You defend a system that allows people to be wildly harmful to themselves with a few chemicals but punishes people for being even moderately involved in others?

In my mind one should either be in favor of increased restrictions to control the populace or one should be in favor of decreased restrictions, but at the very least one should be consistent.  People advocating the preservation of the status quo are anything but consistent.

How do you defend your inconsistency?
Quote
2.  Your person is subject to laws of the government.  If you drive recklessly through a school zone at 100mph you will go to jail, making your body subject to gov't standards of care.  If the gov't deems your services critical enough it has the power to draft you and remove you from your home and surroundings.  In everyday circumstances we do not consider this power because it is not in the gov't's interest to detain people for no reason but the power remains there.  So ultimately you could say that in fact your body is not yours in an unrestricted way.
Driving recklessly endangers others and the existence of a punishment for that doesn't bother me.
That the government can conscript people into its service does not establish the morality of it.  As Heinlein said, no "people or nation has a right to save itself at the price of slavery."

But essentially what you're saying is that because the government has the power to control you, they have the right to do so?
Quote
3. This standard is incomprehensible.  You are confusing and confuting society with government.  Society does not make laws, gov't does.  I do not know what "sanity" entails as a standard of society.  On tthat standard there has never been a "sane" society.
Very well, in that case the government, or at the very least the laws it creates are irrational.  That worded better?
Quote
Are you persuaded now?
Not quite.  You've tried to challenge my belief that people must own themselves and be responsible for what they do to themselves by saying in essence: "Well, the government knows best, and they have the power to do whatever they want to you, so its right."  That doesn't follow for me.

Thanks for trying, though.

The Rabbi

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,435
  • "Ahh, Jeez. Not this sh*t again!"
Gun owner hypocrisy that needs to stop
« Reply #57 on: December 04, 2005, 04:24:07 PM »
Somehow I'm not surprised that you would weasel out of it.  Frankly I doubt anything would convince you but thought I might try.  You could at least be honest enough to admit it.  There is no shame in that.
Fight state-sponsored Islamic terrorism: Bomb France now!

Vote Libertarian: It Not Like It Matters Anyway.

cordex

  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,006
Gun owner hypocrisy that needs to stop
« Reply #58 on: December 04, 2005, 05:34:22 PM »
Quote
Somehow I'm not surprised that you would weasel out of it.  Frankly I doubt anything would convince you but thought I might try.  You could at least be honest enough to admit it.  There is no shame in that.
Weasel out of it?  How so?  I told you what it would take to convince me I was wrong and though you tried, your position wasn't strong enough to stand up to even mild scrutiny.

griz

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,131
Gun owner hypocrisy that needs to stop
« Reply #59 on: December 05, 2005, 04:17:33 AM »
Just out of curiosity Rabbi, what would persuade you that your point of view is incorrect?
Sent from a stone age computer via an ordinary keyboard.

Smoke

  • New Member
  • Posts: 58
Gun owner hypocrisy that needs to stop
« Reply #60 on: December 07, 2005, 03:02:35 PM »
An afternoon of shooting doesn't impare my ability to operate a motor vehicle and put others at risk.

Smoke