Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Poll: Should the NFA be Repealed?
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Werewolf" data-source="post: 1289700" data-attributes="member: 239"><p>Evo,</p><p>It isn't the support that people here question. It is the why of that support. Regulation simply doesn't work. It doesn't keep guns out of the hands of criminals, it doesn't keep drugs out of the hands of criminals, it doesn't keep booze out of the hands of kids and so on and so on and so on.</p><p> </p><p>Regulation is all about control and that is exactly what government is all about at its most fundamental level. CONTROL. And control is the antithesis of freedom.</p><p> </p><p>Is some level of control necessary for a society to function - no rational person could argue otherwise. The real debate is how much control.</p><p> </p><p>The basis of most folks disagreement with you, including me, is just how much control is reasonable not that there should be none.</p><p> </p><p>And reasonable leads us right back to that <em>slippery slope </em>mentioned earlier. Once you're on it its damned difficult to get off of it. </p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>It's not about intrusive. Its about checks, registration, fees that simply just do not work. All those checks and fees accomplish is to annoy law abiding citizens. The criminals could care less. </p><p> </p><p>Think about all the mass shootings that have occured in the past 20 years or so (mentioned because they are high profile and more often than not lead to shouts demanding more gun control from the sheep, panderers and control freaks among us) . Almost all were done by people who acquired their weapons legally, passed the NICS check etc etc etc. those checks didn't stop them from doing what they did then and neither will they stop them in the future. Lets talk Columbine where the boys did get the guns they used illegally. Put two and two together. Checks or no checks, they still killed a bunch of people. As for the 15,000 or so homicides committed every year with a gun would that number go up without the checks? Beats me but IMO it's doubtful. The criminals who killed using a gun would have gotten the gun anyway. The law abiding that killed with a gun would just have used a different implement (assuming they couldn't pass the check - which is doubtful since they are law abiding). It'd be a wash.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>Sure, we need laws to punish those who harm society. But do you really think that the simple posession of a plant used in the privacy of one's own home harms society or that telling a married man and woman that they can't practice oral sex on each other harms society? Should government make it illegal for a married woman to stray or a married man? Most adultery laws are still active and on the books (though rarely enforced). Why should it be illegal in some states to buy and sell things on Sundays (Blue laws) or to sit down with one's friends to enjoy a friendly game of Poker or participate in a sports pool? We could go on and on and on with numerous examples of laws that do nothing more than legislate morality because one group convinced their buddies in the legislature that getting a BJ just isn't right because their wives weren't givin' 'em one every now and then and some other guys wives were. All laws like that do is legislate morality. And in a free society there is no place for laws like that.</p><p> </p><p>Government absolutely should punish people who steal, that harms society. Government should punish people who murder that harms society (almost every single law on the books that covers actions that actually harm society can be categorized as a form of stealing or murder - think about it). There can be no doubt that for a society to function well it must remove from it those members that harm it lest we have anarchy.</p><p> </p><p>Those laws that target behaviors inconsistent with the morals of some group shouldn't be regulated by the government - at least not if that society and its members truly believe in individual responsibility and freedom.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Werewolf, post: 1289700, member: 239"] Evo, It isn't the support that people here question. It is the why of that support. Regulation simply doesn't work. It doesn't keep guns out of the hands of criminals, it doesn't keep drugs out of the hands of criminals, it doesn't keep booze out of the hands of kids and so on and so on and so on. Regulation is all about control and that is exactly what government is all about at its most fundamental level. CONTROL. And control is the antithesis of freedom. Is some level of control necessary for a society to function - no rational person could argue otherwise. The real debate is how much control. The basis of most folks disagreement with you, including me, is just how much control is reasonable not that there should be none. And reasonable leads us right back to that [I]slippery slope [/I]mentioned earlier. Once you're on it its damned difficult to get off of it. It's not about intrusive. Its about checks, registration, fees that simply just do not work. All those checks and fees accomplish is to annoy law abiding citizens. The criminals could care less. Think about all the mass shootings that have occured in the past 20 years or so (mentioned because they are high profile and more often than not lead to shouts demanding more gun control from the sheep, panderers and control freaks among us) . Almost all were done by people who acquired their weapons legally, passed the NICS check etc etc etc. those checks didn't stop them from doing what they did then and neither will they stop them in the future. Lets talk Columbine where the boys did get the guns they used illegally. Put two and two together. Checks or no checks, they still killed a bunch of people. As for the 15,000 or so homicides committed every year with a gun would that number go up without the checks? Beats me but IMO it's doubtful. The criminals who killed using a gun would have gotten the gun anyway. The law abiding that killed with a gun would just have used a different implement (assuming they couldn't pass the check - which is doubtful since they are law abiding). It'd be a wash. Sure, we need laws to punish those who harm society. But do you really think that the simple posession of a plant used in the privacy of one's own home harms society or that telling a married man and woman that they can't practice oral sex on each other harms society? Should government make it illegal for a married woman to stray or a married man? Most adultery laws are still active and on the books (though rarely enforced). Why should it be illegal in some states to buy and sell things on Sundays (Blue laws) or to sit down with one's friends to enjoy a friendly game of Poker or participate in a sports pool? We could go on and on and on with numerous examples of laws that do nothing more than legislate morality because one group convinced their buddies in the legislature that getting a BJ just isn't right because their wives weren't givin' 'em one every now and then and some other guys wives were. All laws like that do is legislate morality. And in a free society there is no place for laws like that. Government absolutely should punish people who steal, that harms society. Government should punish people who murder that harms society (almost every single law on the books that covers actions that actually harm society can be categorized as a form of stealing or murder - think about it). There can be no doubt that for a society to function well it must remove from it those members that harm it lest we have anarchy. Those laws that target behaviors inconsistent with the morals of some group shouldn't be regulated by the government - at least not if that society and its members truly believe in individual responsibility and freedom. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Poll: Should the NFA be Repealed?
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom