That's how laws work. If the dangers caused by an item outweigh the necessity, they become illegal (or that's how it should work).
Mass Shooting in Vegas
- Thread starter onceaday
- Start date
Where else can the surrendering of privacy and rights be considered a "compromise"?
I take it that you also object to taking a driving test and having a driver's licence with your name and address on it. And applying for a passport. And having a social security number. And filing an income tax return. And obeying any criminal or other statute. In fact, you resent not being your own independent little country and telling the rest of the world not to fuck with you.
ALL laws are compromise. They involve surrender of "rights" and "privacy" for the communal good. You don't agree with that concept, go live by yourself on Baffin Island and hunt seal meat. If you don't like that idea, then there are a few hundred laws you have to obey to get along in society and each of them involves you surrendering your "rights and privacy".
Personally I would like to piss wherever I want at any time. But if I whip out my dick at noon at Yonge and Bloor, I get my ass jailed. So there go my "rights and privacy". Now I can exist without pissing willy-nilly as I please and you guys can exist without unfettered and unregulated access to firearms.
Every Western country except for the US has gun registration and gun control laws. I realize that makes British and French people slaves and grovellers in your book. OTOH, a lot fewer people die from gun crime in those countries. Most non Americans like that trade-off.
LOL. Of course it's happened. But way to take it in a literal sense.
But hey, I'll claim you victorious in this whole thread if:
1. A bunch of crooks come my way, and I'd have a gun nearby with enough time to counter the crook
or
2. The army comes banging on my door wanting to take over, since the original concept of the law was to protect one's self from state (potential evil government). I'd hurry up, pull out my gun and go at in a shootout against a group of trained soldiers
If either of these situations ever pop up, you win.
What I object to, is being treated like a criminal prior to any due process or natural justice, as I'm sure many others would be. Think of it this way, create any other sort of government watch list targeting a specific group of people (whether it be based on race, religion, political affiliations, sexual orientation, lifestyle choices, etc.) and see how well that goes over. It won't, nor should it.
So what makes your brand of discrimnation and exclusion that much more just or righteous?
Maybe choose your words more carefully in the future. In the end, it doesn't matter because it doesn't fit your narrative or agenda.
And oagre's examples treat you like a moron as everything from passports to driver's licenses, to even private sector financial tracking where every bank and insurance company knows your credit score as all share some kind of master database (Equifax type of stuff).
So the government and financial companies already treat you like an untrustworthy idiot. Yet you don't give a shit about that stuff. They know your name, work, income, debts, address, 2 pieces of ID..... everything.
But the reason why precautions are taken is to hopefully weed out the bad apples.
Airport security is insanely time consuming, expensive and an overall hassels for 99.999% of passengers. But you got to go through the hassle because there's that .001% who will cause trouble.
I'm sorry I must have missed the part IN THE CONSTITUTION where it says YOU HAVE A RIGHT to drive a car.
This debate is just getting more ridiculous by the day.
OK. So next time one of my nieces / nephews turns 16 years and applies for a G-1, he / she tells the MTO that he / she can drive perfectly well and doesn't need to be tested or licensed. So why are they being disrespected / distrusted by the government which tells them they have to take courses and "prove" they can drive competently and safely? Aren't they being treated like criminals with no evidence?
And once the government finds out that you have a health condition that it considers makes you a safety risk behind the wheel, then you lose your licence even though you feel that driving with schizophrenia or epilepsy is just fine.
Fact is that cars and guns are both potentially HUGE safety risks and the government is entitled to regulate both. The fact that this causes butt hurt is beside the point - except in the USA where the GOP, the gun manufacturers and the NRA have created this bizarre boogeyman of government "oppression".
And the constitution says "A well regulated militia.....". There is no militia in the US. The common guy with a pistol or two at home is not part of an organized militia.
You can debate all you want. It's fun and games in this thread, but hey, nobody can dispute the US has retarded gun violence stats vs. every other western country. The only countries that can have bar charts skewing upwards are third world types of places with civil wars or heavy drugs and such.
It's understandable if those places are in chaos.
The US on the other hand should be better than that.
How utterly stupid are you?
It won't happen. The PEOPLE won't let it happen. The current President has no interest in it. Don't you research anything, like the previous Assault weapons ban? How did that work out? It didn't. If you did any reading and actually took the time to learn a tiny speck or knowledge instead of mindlessly parroting magazine limits, which I told you ad nauseam don't work, you'd know some of the case law and why it's not going to happen. More deaths happened during that period of time than right now in the U.S. by the way.
You also continue to pick piss poor examples. Meth is also legal. It's the unregulated manufacture, use and distribution of it is illegal.
Want to know the answer? Google 'Assault weapons before the 2A"
The takeaway here is the second amendment is written in a way that LITERALLY applies to all weapons.
The Constitution was not written for the times, it was written to stand the test of time.
Do you gun-grabbers think that the 1st amendment applies to only colonial technology and early printing presses too??!
If you are incapable of understanding what the meaning and definition of the 2A is, you should NOT be having this debate.
Just like cunning linguist, you take things too literal instead of looking at the big picture.
Cocaine is also legal in certain circumstances, but when people talk about drugs, people are talking about illegal stuff that ruins people's lives.
The amendment was written up 100s of years ago when the term "militia" made sense. In modern day, people don't even bring up militas anymore because first world countries don't rely on them as a last resort backbone for protection unless it's maybe Switzerland who doesn't even have a large active military to begin with. Most people probably don't even know what a militia is.
You guys are basically justifying your love of guns based on something written over 200 years ago when people didn't even have clean drinking water and people got through life using candlesticks.
Get back to me if the next time there's some kind of deadly motor vehicle accident; your niece is deemed guilty by association, in the court of public opinion; by merely operating a vehicle...or better yet, merely wanting to operate a vehicle. Public transit is available, why does she "need" to operate her own private vehicle and endanger everyone else?
Get back to me when "sensible compromises" include perpetual culpability and responsibility over items that once belonged to you; when you're portrayed as a bad guy because a vehicle that you once had registered in your name, ends up in the hands of a drunk driver many owners later.
What part of "the right of the people..." don't you understand? The constitution was also written in a time when there was no wireless communication, so by that logic, free speech only applies to spoken word, quill pens and parchment, right?
I'm justifying my love for freedom, individuality, due process and natural justice.
I don't have to justify anything. I don't even live in the U.S. What happens down there doesn't have much bearing on me. Americans don't have to justify anything either. The modern courts have already outlined the second amendment is an individual right that doesn't have to bend to the collective.
What I don't do is make decisions without looking at all the FACTS, advocate for regulations that have no basis in research and mindlessly recycle ideas that have previously failed and have no chance of passing in the courts as a knee jerk reaction like basketcase, who doesn't even look up information when he's spoon fed.
Las Vegas gunman shot security guard a full six minutes before opening fire on concertgoers, police reveal
And the plot thickens. Paddock shot the security card 6 minutes before firing into the crowd not after as had been reported. why did it take the police so long to respond
And the plot thickens. Paddock shot the security card 6 minutes before firing into the crowd not after as had been reported. why did it take the police so long to respond
Do you feel that you 'surrendered privacy' when the government requires cars to be registered and owners tested and licensed? Is that all a plot to take away cars?
