[ARCHIVED THREAD] - . (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 11/25/2004 4:36:48 PM EDT
|
Ok, I am tired of getting my ass kicked on this topic. I changed my mind, you arguments where so compelling. |
wtf...
Governments purpose, IMHO, is only to prevent one person from causing injury (physical or economic) to another. Converting guns to full auto does not cause anybody harm. |
| We started down the slippery slop when we "let" these JBTs make us register NFA weapons. Banning books on guns would be a major step backwards for our cause, IMO. Besides, silencers aren't even illegal. So WTF? Fullautos are only ilegal if made after 1986 and we may one day get that overturned. |
I agree. But to have a manual that purpose is to commit an illegal act, there should be restrictions. What if there is a manual describing stealth technology or security codes to military bases. Shit like that. I hope they stop the printing. |
The British garrison at Fort Ticonderoga would have loved you. |
Although not illegal, try wrighting that book, and I am sure you will be visited by some JBTs in black! Don't worry, they have a way of "handleing" just this sort of thing. 
|
What about manuals that describe driving at speeds in excess of the posted limit? Nobody gets hurt by the manuals. The person reading it has a choice, to abide by the law and make his shit legally, or break the law and make one illegally. If he makes the unlawful choice....well, its not immoral, and I think those laws are repugnant to the Constitution, but hes still fucked if he's caught. |
I am not sure about the SOT or being a manufacturer, but I am pretty sure all you need to do in a lot of states is pay a tax to the ATF. |
So the "how to seduce small children and keep it a secret from their parents" type books are a good thing then? There is plenty of content that should be banned. |
|
i own a copy of mein kampf, does that mean im going to throw my jewish coworkers in a oven?? no. Just because you have imformation does not mean you are compelled to do it. I know how to built pipe bombs, does that mean im going to go blow up a school? NO. Sorry but simply because you are provided with information does not mean your going to use it. If they banned those books then they need to shut down al jazeera as well. |
Bullshit. If you make a silencer a Form 1 and Form 4 must be submitted and the tax paid. No ifs, ands, or buts. _Disconnector_ ETA: Are you referring to getting your SOT? |
Yes, yes they do. |
|
From poll results so far, it looks like 9 to 1 think this info should not be illegal. Does the same ratio agree that the Patriot Act is wrong? Because there are parts of the Patriot Act that lets the feds track what books you read. How do the same principles not apply? |
First- post whch part of the PA you are referring to. Second- What makes you think they couldn't track your reading habits before the PA. Third- Tracking what books you read, and banning the books are two different things. I don't like the idea of the .gov tracking my reading habits, but, realistically, you have to assume that everything you buy, and everything you view online can be uncovered. |
I don't know much about the "patriot act", but I always say, "laws only effect law abideing citizens", So I think it probably could have NO usefullness, in our sociaty. Just my opinion. |
The only material I think should be banned is child pornography. But if it started the slippery slope then I would rather that all books/mags should be legal. In British Columbia, a judge ruled that the possession of child pornography was not a crime. The First Amendment is not there to protect what we like, but rather what we don't. |
|
I am reffering to the SOT. You can make one that is not for resale on a Form 1, IIRC. Form 4 is for transfers. |
The dangerous part of the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act is the definition of terrorism. It goes something like: "Any unlawful act meant to influence public opinion or government policy". Not verbatim, but the way it was worded, protesting without a permit and the like can be called terrorism. |
Umm, no. That Act regulated the release of information by the government, and the practices of classifying and unclassifying documents, and making documents available to the public. |
Ah Jeez...... It's always to Protect The Children No parental supervision required The problem is Incrementalism - the mission creep of all who would control us. Plenty of stuff is already banned, I don't think more BANS are the answer. I call 
|
Excellent post. And yes, I would keep the laws prohibiting child pornography, as its production is a horrible crime, one of the worst imaginable. |
If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. John Stuart Mill We cannot silence those we don't like, lest they silence us. |
They're damned good thing if your wife's creepy uncle is giving you the heebie-jeebies but you can't quite put your finger on any specific wrongdoing. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to show her that he's acting just like those folks? This policy argument was settled a long time ago, and your view lost: the risks of prohibiting the discussion of anything are greater than the benefits to be obtained by allowing the government to regulate the content of speech. Period. |
No, not a good thing, but there are laws against seducing children, and thus it makes no sense to ban the book. Pedophilia is not something someone does because they read of it in a book, but rather something they do because they have an urge to, one that they find themselves unable to contain. The Supreme Court has ruled that free speech can be restricted if it directly causes a crime. Thus, the man that orders a killing is a murderer, the same as those who carried it out. If the book directly causes (not aids the criminal in) a crime, yes, it can be banned. |