Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 12/10/2002 4:25:37 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/10/2002 8:10:25 AM EDT by norman74]
I have noticed that a very scary number of members on this board don't seem to get it. For alot of them, the only issue they're concerned with is what affects them and offends their sensibilities, not what is right, and quite frankly what is the American Way. Outlawing pittbulls, DUI traffic checkpoints, censoring books (including the Koran) movies and art that "offends" you; these things are unamerican. I don't give a shit if the book or artwork is Anti-American, the right to print or paint it is really the most fundamental ideal that makes America what it should be. It seems that many of the people on this board want to protect themselves, or even worse have the gov't protect them, from being offended. I really expected better from gun owners, but I really shouldn't be surprised. We are really just a cross-section of the rest of society, and some of the members only believe in freedoms for themselves or that affect them directly. I think the whole "you sound like a liberal" insult that gets thrown around here is pretty pathetic, but since some of you appear to put so much stock in it, I'll relate this: I heard one time that the difference between an liberal and a conservative is that a liberal believes that they, personally, should be able to do whatever they want whenever they want, while a conservative believes in a higher moral basis for their actions. This does not mean that because you think something is offensive that you try to outlaw it. This means that you govern your OWN actions by a moral standard, and hope to change the actions of others by leading by example.
Link Posted: 12/10/2002 4:34:47 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/10/2002 4:37:01 AM EDT by mr_wilson]
[b]what is the American Way?[/b] [url]http://www.prostar.com/web/amerika/taw.htm[/url] Interesting read, here's an exerpt: [b][red]"Of all the things that can be forced upon men; freedom cannot; this each man must take for himself. Freedom being the most precious of commodities; it is not obtained at bargain prices; it is costly; and by Heaven rightfully so. Honor, courage, sacrifice, and vigilance are the coin by which freedom is obtained. A day gone without payment rendered – is a day without freedom."[/red][/b] Mike
Link Posted: 12/10/2002 5:10:28 AM EDT
Where do you draw the line? If there weren't laws, there would be total anarchy and this country wouldn't exist..Now as far as banning books, you're right. But there is a place for those books... And, I can still get a Koran. I have no idea where it has been banned. DUI Checkpoints I am all for. I don't want some drunk killing my wife or kids. They need to be locked up! Your rights end where mine start. Pitbulls? Never heard of anyone banning them either... Bans are a matter of morality...Morals dictate what is right and what is wrong. Freedom of the press? yes..But is it your right to hand out pornographic material? Is it right to let our tax money pay for art exhibits that are offensive to the majority of viewers? Is it right to give our tax money in the form of farm subsidies to tobacco farmers? Is it right to say what you want when you want? Can I go into a mosque and preach Jesus? You say no..Why not? They're a non-profit public subsidy...How about telling some babe on the street she has a nice rack? In both these instances, I could probably get away with it, but I would get a severe butt kicking first. I have also noticed a lot of sheeple here. Nothing we can do except try to convince them that the government is not their friend. There is a poll in general discussions right now that asks if you give your SSN when buying a gun. When I took it 50% said yes! Your SSN was meant for Social Security only. It was NEVER meant as a national ID number and should NEVER be used as such. Morality dictates the majority based upon Judeo-Christian values which is what America was founded on.
Link Posted: 12/10/2002 5:36:52 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/10/2002 5:58:20 AM EDT by norman74]
Originally Posted By Az_Redneck: Where do you draw the line? If there weren't laws, there would be total anarchy and this country wouldn't exist..
View Quote
Well, at the risk of sidetracking my own topic, lets talk about anarchy for a moment. Anarchy, in its pure sense, the absence of all laws, should ultimately be the goal of any society. Is it an unatainable goal? of course. Just like it you start walking towards me, and always halve the distance, you'll never actually get to me, but you'll get so close that you won't be able to tell the diference. While anarchy is not the foundation of our country, I think it should be the ultimate goal. Instead most lawmakers and their constituents spend their time passing laws that attempt to fix the now, and don't think at all about tomorrow. The sad thing is, the laws don't even fix the now.
Now as far as banning books, you're right. But there is a place for those books... And, I can still get a Koran. I have no idea where it has been banned.
View Quote
I don't know of anywhere that it has, but to hear some of the posters on this board rant and rave, it sounds like they'd be all for it
DUI Checkpoints I am all for. I don't want some drunk killing my wife or kids. They need to be locked up! Your rights end where mine start.
View Quote
Don't want to get off on this tangent again, if you're interested in the arguments against them do a search on the previous thread. They are wrong, plain and simple. Where do you decide to limit the checkpoints? How about random stops to check for "terrorists"? Keep in mind, Jane's called the NRA a borderline terrorist group. So is that NRA sticker on the back of your truck grounds to stop and search your car?
Pitbulls? Never heard of anyone banning them either...
View Quote
Welcome to Miami/Dade county, where pitbulls are illegal. Just like guns, it means that the bad people still have them, and folks that want an amazing breed to protect their families against the scum that has taken over Miami can't.
Bans are a matter of morality...Morals dictate what is right and what is wrong.
View Quote
Legislating morality is not possible. If you try, you take away people's free will to determine their own morals, and they get out of practice. They begin to rely on someone else to tell them how to think. The historical precedent for what happens next is terrifying.
Freedom of the press? yes..But is it your right to hand out pornographic material? Is it right to let our tax money pay for art exhibits that are offensive to the majority of viewers?
View Quote
People need to be offended. It gives the busybodies something to do, and it lets you question and hopefully strengthen your moral stance. I don't really think that gov't should be funding it, but until funding comes from somewhere else, and people smarten up enough to realize that being the right to not be offended is not protected by the constitution, then I suppose it has to come from somewhere.
Is it right to give our tax money in the form of farm subsidies to tobacco farmers?
View Quote
No, corporate welfare of any kind is wrong, just like personal welfare.
Is it right to say what you want when you want? Can I go into a mosque and preach Jesus? You say no..Why not? They're a non-profit public subsidy...How about telling some babe on the street she has a nice rack? In both these instances, I could probably get away with it, but I would get a severe butt kicking first.
View Quote
If you want to go into a mosque and call them all a bunch of dirty towel-heads, be my guest. If you want to tell that gang-banger's girlfriend she'd got a ghetto-booty, go right ahead. But just like there shouldn't be any laws to protect their feelings, there must be a law to protect your right to say what you want. I keep hearing about lawsuits agains people for "inciting" others to do things. If some preacher tells his congregation to kill all the blacks, why is it his problem that people can't think for themselves and choose not to do it? What's happening is that we're taking away people's free will and personal responsibility. See above as to what happens next.
I have also noticed a lot of sheeple here. Nothing we can do except try to convince them that the government is not their friend. There is a poll in general discussions right now that asks if you give your SSN when buying a gun. When I took it 50% said yes! Your SSN was meant for Social Security only. It was NEVER meant as a national ID number and should NEVER be used as such.
View Quote
It gets really entertaining when you're in college and they try to use the ssn to identify you.
Morality dictates the majority based upon Judeo-Christian values which is what America was founded on.
View Quote
America may have been founded on them, but the idea of keeping those religious overtones out of politics was specifically addressed. Thanks for the intelligent response! I love it when someone around here demonstrates some level of skill at intelligent self-expression!
Link Posted: 12/10/2002 5:39:06 AM EDT
I agree that a lot of people are quick to defend the freedoms that they like and quick to restrict the freedoms they don't like. It always blows me away when I hear the statement "America, love it or leave it". This is the antithesis of the principle that this country was founded on. America is a place where if you don't like something, you can work within the system to get it changed and all voices have the right to speak.
Link Posted: 12/10/2002 5:42:07 AM EDT
Welcome to the New World Order. Tyranny by the "majority". BTW Az red, What about my right to travel unhindered? What about drivers license checks and insurance checks at dui checkpoints? How about we run warrant checks too, get those criminals off the streets!!! Papers Please......
Link Posted: 12/10/2002 5:43:13 AM EDT
Norman, I couldn't agree with you more, as I have for years noticed that vein in several of our fellow members here, it truly confuses and confounds me. I believe freedom scares some folks.
Link Posted: 12/10/2002 5:52:53 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Reactionary: I agree that a lot of people are quick to defend the freedoms that they like and quick to restrict the freedoms they don't like. It always blows me away when I hear the statement "America, love it or leave it". This is the antithesis of the principle that this country was founded on. America is a place where if you don't like something, you can work within the system to get it changed and all voices have the right to speak.
View Quote
Honestly, this is not just true in our country, but in all countries. The Cubans, Mexicans, Haitians, etc. leave their countries and come here, rather than stay and fix the one they've got. It stands to reason that at least some in these countries are striving to fix their own country. By this logic, America attracts the weak. People always willing to just throw up their hands and walk away when the going gets tough. While our founding document says otherwise, most of our citizens are too willing to just give up and move on to greener pastures. Everytime I see a sticker on a car for some third world nation, I just think, "If you really were so damn proud of your country, why did you leave it?" Unfortunately (fortunately?) America is the last bastion. Even if I wanted to run away to someplace better, there's no where else to go. So the argument of whether I work for change out of a moral standpoint or out of neccessity is moot. We have too, there's no where left to run.
Link Posted: 12/10/2002 6:09:37 AM EDT
Originally Posted By liberty86: Welcome to the New World Order. Tyranny by the "majority". BTW Az red, What about my right to travel unhindered? What about drivers license checks and insurance checks at dui checkpoints? How about we run warrant checks too, get those criminals off the streets!!! Papers Please......
View Quote
Police state no...non-intrusive DUI checkpoints on holiday weekends ONLY yes. Most checkpoints just want you to roll your window down and talk to the cop so he/she can take a whiff and see if you're coherant.. Like I said, your rights stop where mine start. I say that if you climb behind the wheel wasted, you are violating my rights to have some assembalance of safety on the road. We could always have total anarchy and say that if a drunk kills your family member, you can waste him/her right there on the spot.. Drivers licenses? Yes..Have you seen some of the whacko's out there? But, like many libertarians (I'm assuming here) you think they should be non-existant...Ok..Let's ban all licenses..Afterall, they're a violation of our liberties, right? How about a business license? Health Department License for eating establishments? Building permits? Licenses to practice medicine? The list goes on... But I stand on my original statement. SSN's were never intended to be used as national ID numbers. And I know you're going to ask..No, I don't think we need CCW's...I do believe they are a violation of our 2nd Amendment.. No, I'm not a Libertarian. I do not agree with many parts of their agenda. The Constitution Party is where I hang my hat.
Link Posted: 12/10/2002 6:12:17 AM EDT
Originally Posted By norman74: Keep in mind, Jane's called the NRA a borderline terrorist group.
View Quote
Whoa, for real? As in Jane's Defense Group?
Link Posted: 12/10/2002 6:28:08 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/10/2002 6:33:49 AM EDT by norman74]
Originally Posted By sesat_ram:
Originally Posted By norman74: Keep in mind, Jane's called the NRA a borderline terrorist group.
View Quote
Whoa, for real? As in Jane's Defense Group?
View Quote
Actually, I think it may have been JPFO, and they may have subsequently removed them. To be perfectly honest I wrote that without checking my facts, and am in the process fo verifying this. If anyone else knows more about this than me and can provide a link, I'd love to see it. Thanks. Edit: Here's a list of some organizations that were listed in the "patriot group" appendix of the Jane's Counter Terrorism Gun Owners of America (GOA) Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership (JPFO) John Birch Society various FIJA Affiliates U.S. Taxpayer's Party - now the Constitution Party
Originally Posted By Az_Redneck: The Constitution Party is where I hang my hat.
View Quote
Hope you don't have one of their stickers on your car, we might have to stop you for a random check. Afterall, you are a borderline terrorist.
Link Posted: 12/10/2002 6:28:23 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Az_Redneck:
Originally Posted By liberty86: Welcome to the New World Order. Tyranny by the "majority". BTW Az red, What about my right to travel unhindered? What about drivers license checks and insurance checks at dui checkpoints? How about we run warrant checks too, get those criminals off the streets!!! Papers Please......
View Quote
Police state no...non-intrusive DUI checkpoints on holiday weekends ONLY yes.
View Quote
Non-intrusive checkpoint??? Geesh!
Most checkpoints just want you to roll your window down and talk to the cop so he/she can take a whiff and see if you're coherant..
View Quote
That still interferes with MY right to travel unhindered ...
Like I said, your rights stop where mine start. I say that if you climb behind the wheel wasted, you are violating my rights to have some assembalance of safety on the road.
View Quote
I don't drink and drive. Why do you have a right to stop me for no cause, but I don't have a right to travel without passing "inspection". Where DO "your" rights stop?
We could always have total anarchy and say that if a drunk kills your family member, you can waste him/her right there on the spot..
View Quote
Sounds about right to me....
Drivers licenses? Yes..Have you seen some of the whacko's out there?
View Quote
Yep! and 90% of 'em HAVE licenses!
But, like many libertarians (I'm assuming here) you think they should be non-existant...
View Quote
Be careful of assumptions....
Ok..Let's ban all licenses..Afterall, they're a violation of our liberties, right?
View Quote
Right, unless related to "commerce"..
How about a business license? Health Department License for eating establishments? Building permits? Licenses to practice medicine? The list goes on...
View Quote
See above...
But I stand on my original statement. SSN's were never intended to be used as national ID numbers. And I know you're going to ask..No, I don't think we need CCW's...I do believe they are a violation of our 2nd Amendment.. No, I'm not a Libertarian. I do not agree with many parts of their agenda. The Constitution Party is where I hang my hat.
View Quote
I am my counties coordinator for the Constitution Party.......
Link Posted: 12/10/2002 7:31:12 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/10/2002 7:53:50 AM EDT by pbrstreetgang]
boy, am i glad i found this thread. it seems that the arguements i have with both liberal and conservative aquaintences have a core of: "[i]those[/i] people ought not be allowed to do [i]that[/i]". what is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness anyway? i had a hippie friend who was stunned to silence when i explained to him that the nazi party meant the national [i]socialist[/i] party. what about the natural human tendency to seek advantage over others? (democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. -b. franklin) i'm in sales, so i'm right up against this every day. i have a basic moral code that i stick to, so i can live with my self. i encounter lots of people in my industry who draw that line somewhere else, and we all have encountered people who serve only themselves. and some folks just don't have that governing morality at all. where do you draw the line at: living with /correcting /removing these people from society? dui checkpoints or gulags? or just comfort for the grieving victim's families? where do you stand?
Link Posted: 12/10/2002 8:09:18 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/10/2002 8:11:02 AM EDT by norman74]
I find it interesting that the same people that so strongly advocated getting rid of pitbulls, banning art & books, and the social merits or DUI checkpoints have avoided this thread. I wonder if its because they read all our wisdom and saw the light (lol) or is it because when you shine the light on their hippocracy they run and hide? Perhaps I should change the title of the thread, is that possible with the edit button? Edited to say: Yes, you can edit the topic. Maybe this one will get more interest.
Link Posted: 12/10/2002 8:32:34 AM EDT
Originally Posted By norman74: I find it interesting that the same people that so strongly advocated getting rid of pitbulls, banning art & books, and the social merits or DUI checkpoints have avoided this thread. I wonder if its because they read all our wisdom and saw the light (lol) or is it because when you shine the light on their hippocracy they run and hide? Perhaps I should change the title of the thread, is that possible with the edit button? Edited to say: Yes, you can edit the topic. Maybe this one will get more interest.
View Quote
It's old news, that's why. Hypocricy runs rampant here. People only cry "freedom" when they feel theirs is being infringed upon, yet have no problem with similarly restrictive laws that denies a behavior that they feel is not approprate. It's actually a human trait, and it surfaces everywhere, but as a "free" country, it must be guarded against. It most noticable when discussing "contraband". Why, because that's tangable property, and thus the argement becomes tangable. The soccer moms scream "Ban guns", the environazis scream "Ban Automobiles", the left screams "Ban Corporations", the moralist right screams "Ban Alchohol, porn, drugs, revealing clothes, immoral music,........"
Link Posted: 12/10/2002 8:34:49 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/10/2002 8:36:04 AM EDT by kay9]
Most checkpoints just want you to roll your window down and talk to the cop so he/she can take a whiff and see if you're coherent.. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- That still interferes with MY right to travel unhindered ...
View Quote
Just asking. Where do you get the right to travel unhindered? Last time I checked, roadways were administered by the gubmint and they are therefore, regulated. You can walk just about anywhere you want. Driving is a different story.
Link Posted: 12/10/2002 8:49:57 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/10/2002 9:12:55 AM EDT by norman74]
Originally Posted By kay9: can walk just about anywhere you want.
View Quote
actually no you can't. Try walking on the property adjacent to a major highway/interstate and see how many cops just pass you by.
Link Posted: 12/10/2002 9:09:24 AM EDT
I concur with the original post. [url=http://www.6towns.com/driving/roadrpt.htm]Is Driving a Right or a Priviledge?[/url] Hint - it's a Right!
Link Posted: 12/10/2002 9:29:01 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/10/2002 9:31:16 AM EDT by Imbroglio]
Originally Posted By DriftPunch: It's old news, that's why. Hypocricy runs rampant here. People only cry "freedom" when they feel theirs is being infringed upon, yet have no problem with similarly restrictive laws that denies a behavior that they feel is not approprate.
View Quote
The worst are those who will rationalize and support all sorts of tyrannical laws just as long as it is their political party imposing it. IF there ever is a American Revolution V2.0, these people WILL betray you, much like the Tories in V1.0. The sooner you all accept that there is NOTHING that can be done to save the Republic, the sooner you all can get on with your lives.
Link Posted: 12/10/2002 9:30:13 AM EDT
This is Great ! [:P]
Link Posted: 12/10/2002 9:40:01 AM EDT
This thread gives me hope. Some of you are really starting to get it--you're starting to connect the dots and see how it is important to have consistent policy for freedom and liberty. Anarchy is not a bad word! A couple thoughts: If DUI checkpoints actually worked, why then do they usually pull over 3,000 cars and make 2 DUI arrests? They don't work, that's why. They are an excuse to write people tickets for non-related technical offenses. People tend to overestimate their chances of being involved in an accident with a drunk driver thanks to propaganda put out by MADD. Business licenses sure didn't stop companies like Enron and Worldcom from fucking up. Government meddling in the marketplace is always bad. Despite the FDA, every summer it seems like there is a hamburger recall because of an E. Coli outbreak. Government bureaucracy doesn't make you safer. Word of mouth is far more effective. Drivers licenses would be okay if they actually proved that you had an acceptable level of proficiency. Unfortunately, they don't. Thousands of licensed drivers get into serious accidents every day. Plus, the DL has been morphed into a de facto universal state ID, which is disgusting. And why doesn't the "point system" allow for positive points? Why does the government always take from us, but never give?
Link Posted: 12/10/2002 10:02:43 AM EDT
Originally Posted By trickshot: Why does the government always take from us, but never give?
View Quote
I've considered this often. It's far easier to take away Rights and Freedoms than to restore them. If you are a Congresscritter and raise the speed limit, how many folks will thank you? Not many. First time some kids dies, you've got a ranting group of soccer mommies on your door step screaming how YOUR higher speed limit killed their baby. Restoring Freedoms is a thankless task. It's much easier to play CandyMan and respond to negative situations by adding restrictions. "See, I'm active and doing something about a problem"
Link Posted: 12/10/2002 10:20:12 AM EDT
"Despite the FDA, every summer it seems like there is a hamburger recall because of an E. Coli outbreak. Government bureaucracy doesn't make you safer. Word of mouth is far more effective." Ok, for this one I cry BS! Food borne illnesses may take many days before they show symptoms, so word of mouth just doesn't cut it - health inspectors do a sh*tload of work and the worst part of it - people don't check the results! You'd be disgusted by what many restaurants get away with, and more to the point, I shouldn't have to look in a paper before I travel someplace and go to a restaurant, only to find they've been closed and reopened more times than I've been shooting in the last month. Let's just say that there are certainly areas where the government does need to regulate business so that we can enjoy an acceptable degree of risk (whatever that means).
Link Posted: 12/10/2002 10:22:59 AM EDT
I love the die hard Republicans on this site who see nothing wrong with the "Patriot Act". These people are about as free thinking as any DUh asswipe. "It is for the fight against terrorism, and I am not a terrorist, so I am all for it". Ok then, you have now contradicted your argument against "common sense" gun laws. The reason we despise all gun laws is because they are a constantly progressing beast. Just like any other violation of the constitution. Anyone who supports the patriot act, and then turns around two seconds later to complain about how bolt gunners and duck blasters won't help "evil" rifle owners, deserves to have the JBT's kick in there door and snatch that "evil" mossy. Let freedom ring in the ears of a tyrant until, driven to madness, he flees to the comfort of another land.
Link Posted: 12/10/2002 10:29:19 AM EDT
Originally Posted By liberty86: That still interferes with MY right to travel unhindered ...
View Quote
[devil's advocate]You have an actual "right" to travel unhindered?[/devil's advocate] [smartass]I bet the frontiersman were [b]pissed[/b] when the trees and mountains got in their way a couple hundred years ago.[;D][/smartass] The alternative would be that you are able to drive drunk, unchecked and unbothered.....that is where my [b]actual[/b] rights come in. Ed
Link Posted: 12/10/2002 11:11:18 AM EDT
I suck because I would like to go back to our democratic Republic.
Link Posted: 12/10/2002 11:12:47 AM EDT
IMO, the requirement to obtain a driver's license to drive on PUBLIC roads is not oppressive. But requiring all drivers (or even randomly chosen drivers) to show it with NO JUST CAUSE and no SPECIFIC reason at a [s]DUI[/s] er... "Safety" Checkpoint IS oppressive.
Link Posted: 12/10/2002 11:16:41 AM EDT
Originally Posted By SHIVAN:
Originally Posted By liberty86: That still interferes with MY right to travel unhindered ...
View Quote
[devil's advocate]You have an actual "right" to travel unhindered?[/devil's advocate] [smartass]I bet the frontiersman were [b]pissed[/b] when the trees and mountains got in their way a couple hundred years ago.[;D][/smartass] The alternative would be that you are able to drive drunk, unchecked and unbothered.....that is where my [b]actual[/b] rights come in. Ed
View Quote
I was wondering when we'd actually hear from someone who actually doesn't get it.
Link Posted: 12/10/2002 11:30:35 AM EDT
You will not get much discussion on this.
Link Posted: 12/10/2002 11:32:23 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/10/2002 11:48:28 AM EDT by SHIVAN]
No, I get it dumbdumb.....I just don't necessarily agree with "it"....I only chose to address one aspect of your tirade. There IS a difference in disagreement and ignorance. Maybe I don't feel the same way you do about "annoying" DUI checkpoints. I don't like them much when I might happen on one, but I also am not out at 2am much, fucking around, and 99% chance I won't have had any alcohol. Hell, most of the time they move faster than rush hour around here anyway. No bother to me.......and certainly not an attack on my freedom. Sorry we can't all agree with what you think is "right", or what YOU think is unamerican. Anybody who may post a dissenting remark is therefore "unamerican", or "sucks", or doesn't "get it".
Link Posted: 12/10/2002 11:53:10 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/10/2002 11:55:19 AM EDT by norman74]
Originally Posted By SHIVAN: No, I get it dumbdumb.....I just don't necessarily agree with "it"....I only chose to address one aspect of your tirade.
View Quote
I've noticed that when people are backed into a corner, and know in their heart that they're wrong, the often resort to namecalling.
There IS a difference in disagreement and ignorance. Maybe I don't feel the same way you do about "annoying" DUI checkpoints. I don't like them much when I might happen on one, but I also am not out at 2am much, fucking around, and 99% chance I won't have had any alcohol. Hell, most of the time they move faster than rush hour around here anyway. No bother to me.......and certainly not an attack on my freedom. Sorry we can't all agree with what you think is "right", or what YOU think is unamerican. Anybody who may post a dissenting remark is therefore "unamerican", or "sucks", or doesn't "get it".
View Quote
Actually, there's not a difference in this case. It's like the Harley T-shirt says "If I have to explain it, you wouldn't understand". You obviously don't understand, and you will continue to sacrifice other's freedoms inch by inch until they have none left. You continue to miss the bigger picture, which is that you are not the only one "inconvenienced", and this will not end with DUI checkpoints. Your children's generation will have to submit to "terrorist checkpoints" or "firearms checkpoints", or some other loss of freedom, and hopefully they will know enough to blame you.
Link Posted: 12/10/2002 12:23:48 PM EDT
Originally Posted By norman74: Actually, there's not a difference in this case. It's like the Harley T-shirt says "If I have to explain it, you wouldn't understand". You obviously don't understand, and you will continue to sacrifice other's freedoms inch by inch until they have none left. You continue to miss the bigger picture, which is that you are not the only one "inconvenienced", and this will not end with DUI checkpoints. Your children's generation will have to submit to "terrorist checkpoints" or "firearms checkpoints", or some other loss of freedom, and hopefully they will know enough to blame you.
View Quote
[red]X[/red] - Strike 2!!! As I wait in the line to be "checked" I am fully aware that we are all sharing in the same wait. I don't artificially believe that I have some "right" to travel unhindered, despite the link to the contrary. I also believe that the particular service provided at DUI checkpoints is only detrimental to the drunk ass dimwits who leave the bar drunk. As I noted, the wait in these lines, the "effect", you allude to, is far less time consuming than the DC rush hour, and in some cases amusing. Since the officer isn't making all the people in the line submit to a sobriety test or some other such nonsense, I really don't care.....amazingly, you'll find those of us who are [b]responsible[/b] think the exact opposite of your assertions, we know it is assisting in keeping drunks off the roads. Or are you telling me that drunk drivers should be allowed on the roads unfettered? Or at least until they crash, then we KNOW they are guilty, so we can move in and arrest them then. No bother the wife and kids he just killed..... So that we can be as American as possible.[rolleyes] Your other examples are solid and I agree, almost whole-heartedly, with them. The DUI checkpoint is pissing up the wrong tree. Please don't pretend to know me, or know what is in my heart. I have stood on that line and seen many, many people carted away too drunk to stand up....obviously too drunk to drive.
Link Posted: 12/10/2002 12:24:53 PM EDT
Originally Posted By The_Macallan: IMO, the requirement to obtain a driver's license to drive on PUBLIC roads is not oppressive.
View Quote
Bud, [i]how oppressive[/i] something is or isn't is MEANINGLESS! Are handgun licensing or waiting periods oppressive? Would paying a $100 tax to speak publicly be oppressive? Everyone has a different opinion of how oppressive something is. A driver's license is fine with you. Someone else wants mandatory insurance. Another person believes in checkpoints, another in seat belts. If we go by this method, we end up with no Rights at all. A Right needs to be a far more powerful thing. An absolute, that isn't perverted and twisted with the wind. Democracy - if 51% voted slavery back in, would that make it right?
Link Posted: 12/10/2002 12:31:18 PM EDT
Originally Posted By fight4yourrights: Democracy - if 51% voted slavery back in, would that make it right?
View Quote
If the 51% were composed of republicans, yes it would be absolutely acceptible.
Link Posted: 12/10/2002 12:31:37 PM EDT
"Licensing" is de facto taxation, not a demonstration of skill or competency. Yes, as a matter of fact, driving IS a right, as are ALL POSSIBLE ACTIONS YOU MAY UNDERTAKE, up until the point at which your excercise of said actions infringes upon another's right to exist safely. This, however, does not imply the legitimacy of "checkpoints" to be sure you are in "compliance", as this would be, and is in the real world, much more amply demonstrated in the course of action. Public schools are precious little more than propaganda camps, and you all know it deep down. Welfare, in any form sponsored by the Federal Gov't, is wrong. If LOCAL people vote to do it on a LOCAL level, good on 'em. As for me, I'd sure help folks out even more than I already do if I weren't FORCED to by Uncle Sugar. That I don't believe in the Nat'l Endowment for the Arts doesn't mean I don't believe in art, it just means that I feel that if your art was any good, actual people would pay you for it. The Fed has no right to use my money so you can throw shit through a fan and call it art. Good grief, I could go on ALL DAY about this field of thought, and would actually enjoy doing so, but I won't. But to the name callers who have backed into previously mentioned corners by their inability to successfully argue against the theory proffered forth in the beginning of this thread, have you noticed that none of those who SUPPORT it are too excited, or calling names? That's because it is not possible to backed into a corner on this subject, what's right is right. Now, the logistics could be argued forever, but what's right is right. And, BTW, DUI checkpoints are wrong.[:D]
Link Posted: 12/10/2002 12:34:14 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/10/2002 12:37:42 PM EDT by SHIVAN]
If 51% voted for drunk driving to be legal would that make it right? Damn the consequences? Just kill them all and let God sort it out? Just let untrained 12 year olds drive.....damn the consequences? Maybe strengthen the training, like the Germans do for their drivers? Then licenses would be unnecessary. Maybe. Where do my rights to life come in here? What if I am the pedestrian your unlicenesed driver mows down, or your drunk driver? What about my absolute, unalieanable right to life? What about it?
Link Posted: 12/10/2002 12:44:46 PM EDT
Originally Posted By SHIVAN: If 51% voted for drunk driving to be legal would that make it right? Damn the consequences? Just kill them all and let God sort it out? Just let untrained 12 year olds drive.....damn the consequences? Maybe strengthen the training, like the Germans do for their drivers? Then licenses would be unnecessary. Maybe. Where do my rights to life come in here? What if I am the pedestrian your unlicenesed driver mows down, or your drunk driver? What about my absolute, unalieanable right to life? What about it?
View Quote
Point missed altogether. Licensing has NO EFFECT on the skill of the drivers on the road. Thusly, there should be punative actions for demonstrating the INABILITY to operate your vehicle safely. Checkpoints DO NOTHING towards reducing the # of drunks on the road, they may even HINDER the ability of police to aprehend drunk drivers, as most checkpoints are listed ahead of time, and police resources are being utilized THERE instead of being out on the road where they need to be. I very often call 911 when I'm on the highway behind an obvious drunk. NOT ONCE hve they successfully got one, NOT ONCE!!! Perhaps they were all at a checkpoint, reeling in money for the STATE! NOBODY has put forth that people should be able to action themselves unchecked. It is simply being argued that perhaps we are going about it backwards, you know, countin' the chickens before they hatch!?! If I infringe on your rights, shame on me, and puninsh me severely. But DO NOT punatively affect my travels and existance based on the thought that I MIGHT!!!
Link Posted: 12/10/2002 12:45:33 PM EDT
From Tombstone: "Nobody is saying you can't own guns. Nobody is saying you can't carry guns. We're saying you can't carry guns in town!" Nobody is saying you can't drink. Nobody is saying you can't drive. Just saying you can't drink and drive. The consequences have been born out too many times to think that the checkpoint specifically for DUI is a bad idea --- UNLESS YOU DRINK AND DRIVE ON A REGULAR BASIS. Then I can see where you might feel strongly against this. Then I could also see why I wouldn't need to waste my time talking to you reasonably.
Link Posted: 12/10/2002 12:52:52 PM EDT
Originally Posted By SHIVAN: The consequences have been born out too many times to think that the checkpoint specifically for DUI is a bad idea --- UNLESS YOU DRINK AND DRIVE ON A REGULAR BASIS. Then I can see where you might feel strongly against this.
View Quote
The only people who should worry about gun registration and licensing are those who use guns to commit crimes on a regular basis. The same goes for those opposed to warrantless searches of their persons or property. Only if you are doing something illegal would you object to this.
Link Posted: 12/10/2002 12:54:57 PM EDT
Originally Posted By SHIVAN: From Tombstone: "Nobody is saying you can't own guns. Nobody is saying you can't carry guns. We're saying you can't carry guns in town!" Nobody is saying you can't drink. Nobody is saying you can't drive. Just saying you can't drink and drive. The consequences have been born out too many times to think that the checkpoint specifically for DUI is a bad idea --- UNLESS YOU DRINK AND DRIVE ON A REGULAR BASIS. Then I can see where you might feel strongly against this. Then I could also see why I wouldn't need to waste my time talking to you reasonably.
View Quote
I will take your latest diatribe to imply that I, personally, engage in drunken driving on a regular basis. As well, I will imply that you feel that given this obvious deduction, which was brilliantly arrived at via my opposition to DUI checkpoints, I am not to have time wasted debating this with me any further, as I cannot be spoken with reasonably. I have deduced all of this by deciphering your exact words, not by interpreting words never spoken into actions not undertaken, as you have done with me. But if you weren't talkin' about me, rock on.
Link Posted: 12/10/2002 12:56:35 PM EDT
Originally Posted By The_Camp_Ninja:
Originally Posted By SHIVAN: If 51% voted for drunk driving to be legal would that make it right? Damn the consequences? Just kill them all and let God sort it out? Just let untrained 12 year olds drive.....damn the consequences? Maybe strengthen the training, like the Germans do for their drivers? Then licenses would be unnecessary. Maybe. Where do my rights to life come in here? What if I am the pedestrian your unlicenesed driver mows down, or your drunk driver? What about my absolute, unalieanable right to life? What about it?
View Quote
Point missed altogether. Licensing has NO EFFECT on the skill of the drivers on the road. Thusly, there should be punative actions for demonstrating the INABILITY to operate your vehicle safely. Checkpoints DO NOTHING towards reducing the # of drunks on the road, they may even HINDER the ability of police to aprehend drunk drivers, as most checkpoints are listed ahead of time, and police resources are being utilized THERE instead of being out on the road where they need to be. I very often call 911 when I'm on the highway behind an obvious drunk. NOT ONCE hve they successfully got one, NOT ONCE!!! Perhaps they were all at a checkpoint, reeling in money for the STATE! NOBODY has put forth that people should be able to action themselves unchecked. It is simply being argued that perhaps we are going about it backwards, you know, countin' the chickens before they hatch!?! If I infringe on your rights, shame on me, and puninsh me severely. But DO NOT punatively affect my travels and existance based on the thought that I MIGHT!!!
View Quote
Again, I did NOT MISS THE POINT......I am making tertiary points based on the above thread development. Licensing is the means for a body of individuals sworn to public safety (this could be anybody BTW, not necessarily the police or DMV or whomever) to determine if a person has completed a [b]rudimentary[/b] driving curriculum. It does other things I may or may not agree with, but at the very least it allows a "standard" of training. Which is why I alluded to the need for a HIGHER standard. How does punishing your sucky driving habits after you killed the innocent pedstrian bring that person back? What happened to their rights, their families rights to happiness? We are getting close to Draconian law here.....my bet is the punishment for vehicular manslaughter be death under the new "arrangement". Where do we draw the line? Or do we? Or is this all theory we are working up here? Or just general discontent? I'm not able to do what I want when I want to..... [>(] Do you disagree with not being able to yell fire in a theater? How would you feel if your wife/daughter were the one trampled? Where is the line? Please advise......this is proving that there is more to think about than what [b]you[/b] want to see and what [b]you[/b] want to do.
Link Posted: 12/10/2002 1:01:01 PM EDT
Originally Posted By The_Camp_Ninja:
Originally Posted By SHIVAN: From Tombstone: "Nobody is saying you can't own guns. Nobody is saying you can't carry guns. We're saying you can't carry guns in town!" Nobody is saying you can't drink. Nobody is saying you can't drive. Just saying you can't drink and drive. The consequences have been born out too many times to think that the checkpoint specifically for DUI is a bad idea --- UNLESS YOU DRINK AND DRIVE ON A REGULAR BASIS. Then I can see where you might feel strongly against this. Then I could also see why I wouldn't need to waste my time talking to you reasonably.
View Quote
I will take your latest diatribe to imply that I, personally, engage in drunken driving on a regular basis. As well, I will imply that you feel that given this obvious deduction, which was brilliantly arrived at via my opposition to DUI checkpoints, I am not to have time wasted debating this with me any further, as I cannot be spoken with reasonably. I have deduced all of this by deciphering your exact words, not by interpreting words never spoken into actions not undertaken, as you have done with me. But if you weren't talkin' about me, rock on.
View Quote
Generalized......for those that would object to them on those grounds. Not specific to you. Nor implied that you would disregard the law.
Link Posted: 12/10/2002 1:01:40 PM EDT
Originally Posted By SHIVAN:
Originally Posted By The_Camp_Ninja:
Originally Posted By SHIVAN: If 51% voted for drunk driving to be legal would that make it right? Damn the consequences? Just kill them all and let God sort it out? Just let untrained 12 year olds drive.....damn the consequences? Maybe strengthen the training, like the Germans do for their drivers? Then licenses would be unnecessary. Maybe. Where do my rights to life come in here? What if I am the pedestrian your unlicenesed driver mows down, or your drunk driver? What about my absolute, unalieanable right to life? What about it?
View Quote
Point missed altogether. Licensing has NO EFFECT on the skill of the drivers on the road. Thusly, there should be punative actions for demonstrating the INABILITY to operate your vehicle safely. Checkpoints DO NOTHING towards reducing the # of drunks on the road, they may even HINDER the ability of police to aprehend drunk drivers, as most checkpoints are listed ahead of time, and police resources are being utilized THERE instead of being out on the road where they need to be. I very often call 911 when I'm on the highway behind an obvious drunk. NOT ONCE hve they successfully got one, NOT ONCE!!! Perhaps they were all at a checkpoint, reeling in money for the STATE! NOBODY has put forth that people should be able to action themselves unchecked. It is simply being argued that perhaps we are going about it backwards, you know, countin' the chickens before they hatch!?! If I infringe on your rights, shame on me, and puninsh me severely. But DO NOT punatively affect my travels and existance based on the thought that I MIGHT!!!
View Quote
Again, I did NOT MISS THE POINT......I am making tertiary points based on the above thread development. Licensing is the means for a body of individuals sworn to public safety (this could be anybody BTW, not necessarily the police or DMV or whomever) to determine if a person has completed a [b]rudimentary[/b] driving curriculum. It does other things I may or may not agree with, but at the very least it allows a "standard" of training. Which is why I alluded to the need for a HIGHER standard. How does punishing your sucky driving habits after you killed the innocent pedstrian bring that person back? What happened to their rights, their families rights to happiness? We are getting close to Draconian law here.....my bet is the punishment for vehicular manslaughter be death under the new "arrangement". Where do we draw the line? Or do we? Or is this all theory we are working up here? Or just general discontent? I'm not able to do what I want when I want to..... [>(] Do you disagree with not being able to yell fire in a theater? How would you feel if your wife/daughter were the one trampled? Where is the line? Please advise......this is proving that there is more to think about than what [b]you[/b] want to see and what [b]you[/b] want to do.
View Quote
Very succinctly, a person has a right to do whatever it is they wish to do in order to pursue their personal happiness, freedom and commerce. That is, until their actions infringe upon ANOTHER'S pursuit of same. It's not at all about what "I wanna do", stop painting it with that brush, you're not very good at it. I don't want to debate this with you anymore, you and I are hopelessly deadlocked, and I'm cool with that, as I know that my ideal will never come to pass. You will get your world of checkpoints, mandatory classes, video monitoring etc., and all I'll be able to do is slow it down. You'll win, so don't worry, be happy!
Link Posted: 12/10/2002 1:03:38 PM EDT
But SHIVAN, I'm sure you're a nice guy. If I'm ever in VA, we'll have a beer, but not drive anywhere[:D].
Link Posted: 12/10/2002 1:05:12 PM EDT
DUI checkpoints assume all drivers are guilty and must prove their innocents. Sacrificing freedoms for the guise of safety = sheepel.
Link Posted: 12/10/2002 1:08:39 PM EDT
Originally Posted By The_Camp_Ninja: ...as I know that [red]my ideal[/red] will never come to pass. You will get [red]your[/red] world of checkpoints, mandatory classes, video monitoring etc., and all I'll be able to do is slow it down. You'll win, so don't worry, be happy!
View Quote
I thought this was about being "American", the "American Way".......where do the millions of "my ideal"s meet. Since not one of us on this thread can [b]totally[/b] agree, where is the "American" way?
Link Posted: 12/10/2002 1:11:53 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/10/2002 1:14:23 PM EDT by SHIVAN]
Originally Posted By markl32: DUI checkpoints assume all drivers are guilty and must prove their innocents. Sacrificing freedoms for the guise of safety = sheepel.
View Quote
Please, this is weak......[rolleyes] If you are innoncent the "sacrifice" you made was 10 minutes of your time and having to roll down your window and answer one or two questions. If it was your wife or family member later stuck to the grill of a '79 Eldorado you might think differently. BTW, you should observe one of those lines from beginning to end and it WILL change your perspective of their effectiveness.
Link Posted: 12/10/2002 1:16:11 PM EDT
Originally Posted By The_Camp_Ninja: But SHIVAN, I'm sure you're a nice guy. If I'm ever in VA, we'll have a beer, but not drive anywhere[:D].
View Quote
Be glad to......the Metro is a great great thing.......no need to drive.
Link Posted: 12/10/2002 1:24:34 PM EDT
I usually try not to talk to [:K]Libertarians[:K]but I'll make an exception for you. Sadly it is you who does not get it. It's not unamerican for our elected officials to pass laws and statutes even ones that institute DUI traffic checkpoints and laws against pitbulls,that is what they are there for. Now it's not really unamerica to,as you are cry "no no you doing it all wrong" if there is something you don't like,it's just pathetic. I'm not telling you to just live with laws you don't approve off but there is a way to go about it,in fact the very founders you think we all should listen to gave us a way to address this type of issue. Bear in mind if the law does not change thats not unamerican it's just that most people think your wrong. Majority rule,thats the way it is here in America and I would not have it any other way. It's the majority that govern not the founding documents they are the guide lines but everything eles is up to us. The idea that somebody can discard the law because they don't like it is nuts,thats no better than Al Gore trying to change the laws to suit me in 2000,IT DON'T WORK LIKE THAT!
Link Posted: 12/10/2002 1:41:43 PM EDT
Originally Posted By SHIVAN:
Originally Posted By The_Camp_Ninja: ...as I know that [red]my ideal[/red] will never come to pass. You will get [red]your[/red] world of checkpoints, mandatory classes, video monitoring etc., and all I'll be able to do is slow it down. You'll win, so don't worry, be happy!
View Quote
I thought this was about being "American", the "American Way".......where do the millions of "my ideal"s meet. Since not one of us on this thread can [b]totally[/b] agree, where is the "American" way?
View Quote
The "American Way" is when everyone is acting in their own self-interest, within the simple constraint that acknowledge everyone is INDIVIDUALLY responsible for their own actions. The "American Way" is that YOUR right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose, i.e. [b]your freedom to act ends when it has IMMEDIATE, OBVIOUS and DIRECT affects on ME.[/b] Millions of "ideals" meet in the marketplace of Capitalism and free enterprise, liberty and freedom. Rah-rah-rah... you get the point. A free society is NEVER a "neat" society. You want neatness, safety and protection - stay home.
Link Posted: 12/10/2002 1:51:25 PM EDT
Originally Posted By The_Macallan:
Originally Posted By SHIVAN:
Originally Posted By The_Camp_Ninja: ...as I know that [red]my ideal[/red] will never come to pass. You will get [red]your[/red] world of checkpoints, mandatory classes, video monitoring etc., and all I'll be able to do is slow it down. You'll win, so don't worry, be happy!
View Quote
I thought this was about being "American", the "American Way".......where do the millions of "my ideal"s meet. Since not one of us on this thread can [b]totally[/b] agree, where is the "American" way?
View Quote
The "American Way" is when everyone is acting in their own self-interest, within the simple constraint that acknowledge everyone is INDIVIDUALLY responsible for their own actions. The "American Way" is that YOUR right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose, i.e. [b]your freedom to act ends when it has IMMEDIATE, OBVIOUS and DIRECT affects on ME.[/b] Millions of "ideals" meet in the marketplace of Capitalism and free enterprise, liberty and freedom. Rah-rah-rah... you get the point. A free society is NEVER a "neat" society. You want neatness, safety and protection - stay home.
View Quote
Mac I understand it....but the fist to end of the nose is a low consequence example, oversimplified for the sake of making an argument "easy". Now complicate it with a 3000lb car going 50mph....your right to drive it while intoxicated ends at the bumper of my car or the edge of my clothes.....right? Or do we accept that drunk driving is an enforceable, "good", law under the "ideal pursuit theory"? Does the roadblock for the sole purpose of rooting out DWI drivers, then somehow also become acceptable as this is the only way to "Protect and Serve", or should I be able to shoot the drunk driver on sight? Or run him off the road? Or should we leave it until the unsuspecting person runs in to them, or he in to them? A broken nose can be mended with time, a loss of a family member takes a bit more from you. Just thoughts now......
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Top Top