0
wmw999

Which is more important -- my rights, or your safety?

Recommended Posts

Quote

So, by extension, you think it's just fine for a drunken airline pilot to board a plane just as long as he doesn't attempt to fly it. It's only after he attempts to fly it that he should not be allowed to do so.

That it's perfectly fine for a madman to carry an AR-15 into a movie theater, just as long as he doesn't kill anyone.

That guns should be allowed in court rooms, until after the shooting starts.

Hmmm...



Yeah, because we haven't moved into the days or "pre-crime" yet.
----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Absolutism is for the weak minded.


Pot meet kettle.



JP, you astound me sometimes. Other times, not so much.

I am absolutist when it comes to certain facts like the freezing point of water at standard atmospheric pressure or the speed of light in a vacuum. Beyond things like that, I generally strive for some sort of middle ground. I might fail every once in awhile, but for the most part I've found that whenever somebody takes an absolute stance on something which is opinion based, that's probably misguided.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Just curious about how you view this. If there are severe consequences, then surely it's not a right?
If it was, then surely I have the right to murder someone?



I can speak my mind. I can say whatever I want. There are no banned words because such would be a “prior restraint” of speech.



Perhaps more significantly we don't limit technology which could be misapplied to commit criminal acts and cause civil damages when it has permissible uses.

We don't limit the number of subscribers to web sites because it would be a real problem when one like youtube was used to incite millions of followers to commit violent illegal acts.

We don't limit word processor file size because they may be used to produce documents like Ted Kaczynski's 35,000 word manifesto.

We haven't banned color copiers and printers because they might be used to print counterfeit currency that some people would accept as real.

We haven't banned digital recorders that could be used for illegal surveillance or unauthorized duplication of copyright materials.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why does it have to be one or the other? To me it's about responsibility. I believe that a society that exercises individual rights with responsibility can still have safety.

I also believe that giving up individual rights does NOT make one safe.


"Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I don't think there's an easy black-and-white answer for any given set of rights/safety. We need laws to set guidelines, enforcement for violators (within reason -- I don't think you want speeding laws enforced, after all), and judicial review for the fuzzy cases.

  • I think that I have every right to associate with whomever I choose, even if it's a gangbanger.
  • I have a right to own, buy, and sell weapons (just as I would have a right to own, buy, and sell high-performance canopies).
  • I have the right to wear short skirts and spandex (and the intelligence to know that neither is appropriate outside my bedroom any more).

    I also think that every other American, including people who are nothing like me, have the same rights. Some of them are criminals. Some of them are far more law-abiding than I am. I don't think that their color, national heritage, religion, hair length, or choice of tattoos should change that -- even if I think they're fucking morons.

    The point is that this is a discussion, and every single person has a different set point for nearly every issue. Recognizing that we all have a right to our opinion, and that sometimes those opinions are incompatible with each other, is a good step in trying to figure out a pathway through this quagmire.

    Wendy P.



  • I haven't seen any pathway open up. All I know is that an american, being of sound mind, has the right to own an AR15. And that right doesn't infringe on your safety.

    Allowing americans 'not' of sound mind to have one, might (might not will).
    If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
    Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites



    I haven't seen any pathway open up. All I know is that an american, being of sound mind, has the right to own an AR15. And that right doesn't infringe on your safety.



    until they leave it lying around and their son/daughter/cousin/neighbour pinches it and shoots up a school

    or a thief breaks in and steals it

    Or they are cleaning it and have an ND

    etc.
    Never try to eat more than you can lift

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Quote



    I haven't seen any pathway open up. All I know is that an american, being of sound mind, has the right to own an AR15. And that right doesn't infringe on your safety.



    until they leave it lying around and their son/daughter/cousin/neighbour pinches it and shoots up a school

    or a thief breaks in and steals it

    Or they are cleaning it and have an ND

    etc.



    They still have the right to own it. suck it up.

    You want to enforce that they have mandatory safety courses along with the mandatory background checks, that's something you can do, but it is a right to own it. Just because australians decided to give up that right doesn't mean anyone else has to.

    And from what I've seen, a lot of australians aren;t too happy about having had to give up their arms either.
    If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
    Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Quote

    Quote



    I haven't seen any pathway open up. All I know is that an american, being of sound mind, has the right to own an AR15. And that right doesn't infringe on your safety.



    until they leave it lying around and their son/daughter/cousin/neighbour pinches it and shoots up a school

    or a thief breaks in and steals it

    Or they are cleaning it and have an ND

    etc.



    They still have the right to own it. suck it up.

    You want to enforce that they have mandatory safety courses along with the mandatory background checks, that's something you can do, but it is a right to own it. Just because australians decided to give up that right doesn't mean anyone else has to.

    And from what I've seen, a lot of australians aren;t too happy about having had to give up their arms either.



    The majority of Australians couldn't give a flying fuck.
    I was commenting on the fact that you said that "that right doesn't infringe on your safety". I gave you several examples where it did, and you changed the subject.
    Never try to eat more than you can lift

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites