How do the anti-gun crowd feel about restricting other freedoms for the public good?

[TomHansley]

How do the anti-gun crowd feel about restricting other freedoms for the public good?

44,000 Americans die each year in automobile accidents.

Many of these are cause by excess speed. Speeding is dangerous and illegal.

How would you feel about a law that vehicles had to be govern so that they could only go the speed limit of the road they're on?

Using current GPS technology it would be pretty easy for your vehicle to figure where it is and adjust the max vehicle speed to the speed limit of the road it is on.

Emergency vehicles (police, fire, ambulance) would be exempt.

Is the benefit to the public good worth losing your right to speed?

[electron_blue]

1. Wouldn't bother me. What's your point?

[atreides1]

3. I think the point is

What other freedoms are you willing to give up for the public good?

[electron_blue]

19. Probably a lot more than you're willing to.

Honestly, the speed governor would probably save lives, as do the smoking restrictions. That's the distinction for me.

Otoh, the bullshit TSA restrictions in place, and other Patriot Act rules/laws don't save lives or make us any safer, so I really hate them. I generally look at it practically - if it is safer, better in general for everyone, then yeah I'm for it.

[derby378]

47. America's core value is freedom, not safety

We still have inalienable rights, and I for one intend to use mine.

[Tejas]

48. I think the word here is "oxymoron"

When the question asked was:
"What other freedoms are you willing to give up for the public good?"


you responded with:
"Probably a lot more than you're willing to."

+

"Otoh, the bullshit TSA restrictions in place, and other Patriot Act rules/laws don't save lives or make us any safer, so I really hate them."

-----------------------------------------

You proclaim that you're flexible in that you'd give up more rights than the next guy, but in the same breath.......the banning of certain items on airflights seem to rub you the wrong way and the Patriot Act doesn't rate up there with you either.

Care to expand on your stance (ie: choose) one way or the other?

Not disagreeing with you, the TSA bit and Patriot Act are among the most wasteful and anti civil-rights measures ever to come out of DC. It would be pretty safe to assume I don't care to see any more of my rights threatened by any other ridiculous garbage out of DC. How about you?

[electron_blue]

59. Well, not "the next guy", just that particular poster.

Seems we agree with TSA and Patriot Act. My point is that it's my perception that it's a significant infringement on our rights without any tangible increase in our safety. I don't know what you're referring to when you use the word oxymoron. I am more willing to consider limitations when they result in verifiable increases in safety of those involved or nearby, such as restrictions on smoking, drinking & driving, seatbelts, gun ownership. Heck, I think talking on and texting on a cell phone while driving should be banned, but I see enforcement of that as problematic.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[atreides1]

When you live without something

How can you miss it?

The Iraqis lived without western style democracy, look what it's doing to them!

[Trajan]

17. So, things are SO much better for Iraqis ....

Now that they have the right to enjoy gun toting extremists roaming the neighborhoods with the ability to BLOW AWAY ANY person who says one PEEP of disagreement ?

Yeah ..... what a life ! ....

I am sure they thank you for the rich sentiment ...

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[YOY]

25. What shit is that buddy?

I'm all ears and you're DEFINITELY F***ING with the wrong "hippie".

[maxidivine]

27. in all fairness

If he feels better in other countries then why would he want to come back here? Nobody is going to force him to come back to the U.S., if he likes it better wherever he is then he should stay there.

[YOY]

29. Because he loves his country.

He wants to see it become a better place. I've lived 1/3 of my adult life abroad in developed and developing countries.

If you can't say someone else is doing something right and we might want to pay heed as it could help our society then you have no such thing as a society...just an insulated circle jerk of pseudo-patriotism.

If you don't think things could be done better here then you're in the wrong place. FReerepublic is all about keeping the Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush status quo going...

And as for "coriolis" if he sees the Peace Corps embalm and thinks he's got some "Dippy Hippie" to f*** with, he's got another thing coming. This "Dippy Hippie" keeps sober all day and night and hits back twice as hard as a result of growing up around redneck f***tards who take the low road.

[cyclezealot]

31. who said we like it better.

americans are so self conscious. We did not say that. Many things we miss, some things we don't. Its a privilege to live overseas. Something more Americans need the benefit of in order to grow.

[cyclezealot]

30. ever get overseas, be glad to take you on a

midnight stroll in most any EU city. Now that is free.

[maxidivine]

24. Why come home then?

[YOY]

28. Why change anything? Everything is great here!

No need to ever compare to other countries. We do everything right! Always! No need to get a passport! No need at all! Everyone else is not free! We are FREE though! They told us so!

Jesus Christ...

[Trajan]

4. Driving and automobile regulations already exist ....

Lame argument ....

I can understand the attraction of the DU Gungeon to those who normally inhabit 'thehighroad.org' and other RW/Libertarian gun-freak organizations .... I mean, here you are in a Liberal forum, able to espouse UNprogressive viewpoints, and the administrators let you stay ....

Go figure ....

[Mojorabbit]

22. Are you saying the

constitution is not a progressive document? That it is not progressive to support it?

[maxidivine]

37. How is support of the Constitution and Bill of Rights

"right-wing" or "unprogressive"?

Seems to me that a great way to alienate others from the liberal side of the house would be to declare that anyone not in lockstep, 100% aggreement with you on "what is progresive" is obviously a right-winger or libertarian and therefore, the devil.

Why would you want to be so divisive?

I really don't understand the level of antipathy, if anyone can give me a lesson on it then please, do it up.

[iverglas]

39. interesting question

How is support of the Constitution and Bill of Rights
"right-wing" or "unprogressive"?


Would you have asked it of someone proposing that the alcohol prohibition provision that was once in your Constitution be repealed?

Would you have asked it of someone arguing that your Constitution did not prohibit African-Americans and women from voting, even though it had been interpreted that way for decades?

Would you ask it of someone arguing that your Constitution, properly interpreted, prohibits denying same-sex couples access to marriage?

Is it just the parts of your Constitution that you like, and the interpretation of your Constitution that you like, that is writ in stone?

[maxidivine]

42. Our Constitution

Doesn't say a single word about marriage. Not same-sex, not opposite sex, not even animal sex. Try again.

And it isn't that the constitution is set in stone, it's just that there needs to be a real pressing reason to change it.

Prohibition on alcohol unlocked a whole arena of troubles that didn't exist before. And it wasn't a useful law, that is why it was struck down ten years after it was enacted. Our legislature saw the results, knew how unpopular and useless it was, and decided to eliminate some gangster revenue by re-legitimizing alcohol.

And I think the alcohol prohibition anology that makes more sense is when it was enacted, not when it was repealed.

[iverglas]

43. boring answer

You people are so predictable.

Our Constitution
Doesn't say a single word about marriage. Not same-sex, not opposite sex, not even animal sex. Try again.

Leaving aside your bizarre decision to say something so utterly offensive ...

Your Constitution does say a little thing about equal protection of the law.

And your courts have in fact held that the right to marry is a fundamental right (which one might think is covered by that bit of your Constitution about all other rights not expressly enumerated etc.). You may have heard of Loving v. Virginia.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0388_0001_ZO.html

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.

Try again?


And it isn't that the constitution is set in stone, it's just that there needs to be a real pressing reason to change it.

Uh huh. So if someone were to propose a change, and offer argument in support of the proposal, would your question:

How is support of the Constitution and Bill of Rights "right-wing" or "unprogressive"?

be pertinent somehow? Is "it's in the Constitution / Bill of Rights" a complete response to a proposal to change the Constitution?

I wouldn't have thought so.


Prohibition on alcohol unlocked a whole arena of troubles that didn't exist before. And it wasn't a useful law, that is why it was struck down ten years after it was enacted. Our legislature saw the results, knew how unpopular and useless it was, and decided to eliminate some gangster revenue by re-legitimizing alcohol.

Yeah, blah blah. The fact is that something was in your Constitution and isn't there any more, because people lobbied to have it removed. The fact that it was in the Constitution was apparently not a complete answer to arguments for removing it.


And I think the alcohol prohibition anology that makes more sense is when it was enacted, not when it was repealed.

There you go.

Maybe there are people who have opinions about the second amendment to your Constitution that would go along the same lines. Or different lines, and still amount to arguments for eliminating it.

So I gather that

How is support of the Constitution and Bill of Rights "right-wing" or "unprogressive"?

-- i.e. the assertion that YOU "support the Constitution and Bill of Rights" -- would not be a complete answer to such proposals.

So I have to see that question as very simply an attempt to represent someone's failure to "support the Constitution and Bill of Rights" as being negative in and of itself, even though you would apparently have to agree that it is not.

And that, my friend, is the very picture of demagoguery.

[Trajan]

56. Poo ....

Just like the thread's argument .... a bunch of false, fallacious poo .....

[iverglas]

5. where's your analogy?

Many of these are cause by excess speed. Speeding is dangerous and illegal.

"Illegal". There's your analogy. There's your restriction on liberty in the public interest.


Using current GPS technology it would be pretty easy for your vehicle to figure where it is and adjust the max vehicle speed to the speed limit of the road it is on.

Hey -- are you suggesting that firearms be equipped with GPS technology so their trajectory can be followed? Transfers to ineligible persons could be detected, use in crimes could be detected ...

Sounds great to me!

Now, if you want to apply the GPS technology to enable the disabling of firearms ... well, then applying it to enable the slowing down of motor vehicles sounds reasonable.

Of course, next time you're facing a bear or trying to get to the hospital, you might regret it.


Is the benefit to the public good worth losing your right to speed?

You had such a clever idea, and you just went to sadly astray.

Your right to speed has already been impaired. That's what speed limits are. Duh.

[bossy22]

9. well

you can speed on your private property...if you physically can

[Trajan]

10. That sounds kinda useful ....

GPS locators on every gun, with each bullet imprinted with the buyers unique ID ....

[iverglas]

35. yeah, eh?

I was kinda glad it got brought up!

More efficient than registration alone, fer shure.

edit -- but I should point out that it was recently explained here that microchipping a firearm, e.g., wouldn't work because the clever criminals would just put it in a microwave or some such ...

[wtmusic]

6. How would you feel about a law that limits your right to drink while driving?

Speeding (usually) kills the speeder. So your argument is a straw man.

[coriolis]

11. I see irony isn't completely dead.

:eyes:

[atreides1]

12. But

Those laws only limit your right to drink alcoholic beverages, not that morning cup of coffee, bottle of water, or can of soda.

[wtmusic]

16. Exactly

the part that makes it dangerous to others.

Gun nuts can still play with pop guns, slingshots, whatever makes them feel like they have a big wee-wee.

[maxidivine]

38. And they wonder why they're called antis and moonbats

Maybe it has something to do with the level of hate and ignorance that they seem to project into so much of their speech.

"whatever makes them feel like they have a big wee-wee."

Yep, just like that, a crowd of fence-sitters moves away from the democratic party.

Way to go wtmusic, way to go.

[wtmusic]

41. As opposed to gun nuts

who think restricting their right to buy a .50 at 7-Eleven means the Constitution is toast.

I think they're moonbats, so it works both ways.

[maxidivine]

44. That's right

Because $8,000 30+ pound (before the heavy optics) five foot long rifles whose ammunition costs $5 a round for the bargain basement surplus fodder is a real threat to the citizens of this country.

Get real, I bet you buy right into the mentally deficient propaganda that .50 caliber rifles are made to shoot down jetliners don't you? Despite the fact that their single most common use is for extreme long range competitive shooting.

All the gangbangers are bleeding the bank dry snapping up .50 BMG rifles and Nightforce scopes left and right aren't they?

Has there ever been one single incident where a .50 BMG rifle was used to murder someone?

Have ANY planes ANYWHERE at ANY TIME been shot down with one?

I'm begging you to come up with a single piece of anecdotal evidence that anything like this has ever happened.

You will probably find something saying that they have been used in crimes, and I bet those "crimes" involved bringing one into California or some other place where everything must be registered.

Unlike the real crimes being commited with Jennings and Lorcins, .50 BMG 'crime' is incredibly safe to go after, since a vanishingly small number of .50 owners would willingly harm a law enforcement officer.

[wtmusic]

45. Calm down

That .50 really triggers a kneejerk with you, doesn't it? If you guys didn't go apeshit reactionary when we talk about regulating anything, anywhere, anytime we probably wouldn't give a shit about regulating them.

Your .50 trivia is of absolutely no interest to me, and obsessions are not healthy.

[Irreverend IX]

51. Facts are annoying things, aren't they?

You have an interesting way of admitting you've lost an argument.

[maxidivine]

60. Of course it doesn't

And of course just knowing that a rifle that weighs over thirty pounds is extremely unlikely to be used in any crime, hence why there has never been a murder commited in the U.S. with one, is an "obsession" to you.

Please prove me wrong.


You can't though.

[spin]

46. Question, why do anti-gun advocates have an obsession with...

the penis size of gun owners?

Just out of curiosity , I tried to find some research that would correlate the penis lengths of gun owners and non gun owners. This proved a futile expenditure of my time. I suspect the theory that men with short penises own guns to compensate is merely another urban myth.

I did, however, find some interesting information:

The question of race and penis size is therefore very controversial, and has not been definitively established. Although there is a stereotype that Africans are larger on average compared to Caucasians, and East Asians are smaller— there are no reliable data backing these perceptions.
http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Human_penis_size_-_Race_and_penis_size/id/5370385

If what you suggest is true, I would suspect that Asians would be more attracted to firearms than Caucasians. Couldn't find any statistics to prove or disapprove that theory either.

So I'll play amateur psychologist. I suspect that the fear of self reliant people who chose to own and use weapons overwhelms gun haters. To compensate for their own feelings of inadequacy they perpetuate misconceptions and falsehoods.

"The poor ego has a still harder time of it; it has to serve three harsh masters, and it has to do its best to reconcile the claims and demands of all three...The three tyrants are the external world, the superego, and the id."
Sigmund Freud

[iverglas]

49. if only ...

Question, why do anti-gun advocates have an obsession with...
the penis size of gun owners?

... someone had said something about the penis size of gun owners ...


What I saw looked kinda like somebody saying something about the feelings of inadequacy of gun owners:

whatever makes them feel like they have a big wee-wee.

Or the feelings of adequacy and desire to be supersized maybe.


I dunno. When I think about a population fond of "AK-47s and pit bulls" (see recent post in another thread), I'm just hard pressed to think of another explanation.

I mean, other than just sheer sociopathic vileness.

[spin]

61. I see a lot of "rednecks" and bit bulls in this small Florida...

town, but the hunters use larger caliber, more powerful rifles for hunting.

The pit bulls seem well trained and less aggressive then the pit bulls I encountered in the urban Tampa Bay environment. Pit bulls can be great dogs, but a lot depends on the owner.

My daughter raised a really great pit bull when she lived in South Florida. Unfortunately someone stole it. She suspects the thief wanted to use the dog in dog fights. She thought she seen the dog's picture on a TV report that showed dogs seized from a dog fighting ring in Miami. Her pit bull had unusual markings and one of the dogs in the video resembled hers. When she called to find out, she was told the dogs had been euthanized.

None of the gun owners in this town appear to suffer form feelings of inadequacy. Guns are very common in the rural areas of the southern U.S. It's an entirely different environment then the big cities of the northeast. Nobody thinks owning a gun is a big deal. Their daddy owned several, as did their grand daddy and their great grand daddy. Guns are part of their life and their culture.

[wtmusic]

55. Self-reliant people don't need guns.

You say "choose", but the vehemence with which they defend their right indicates that guns address a clear and conspicuous need. SMall penis size in this reference is not literal but represents feelings of inadequacy.

[spin]

57. Note the wording...

I suspect that the fear of self reliant people who chose to own and use weapons overwhelms gun haters.

especially the phrasing "who chose". True, not all self-reliant people own weapons, but many chose to.

self-reliant
: having confidence in and exercising one's own powers or judgment
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/self-reliant

Self-reliant people, by definition, tend to make and take responsibly for their own decisions. Also the definition suggests that they don't suffer from feelings of inadequacy.

I'm glad you made it clear that the small penis reference wasn't literal. I feared it was.


"No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion."
James Burgh

[SteveM]

63. Are you obsessed with "penis size?" You - ahem - brought it up again.

[Tejas]

50. Your "wee-wee" analogy, do female gunowners have that problem? n/t

[SteveM]

62. Since you brought up "wee-wee" first, what do you find so fascinating about it?

[TomHansley]

26. Speeding also kills the other guy...

Speeding (usually) kills the speeder. So your argument is a straw man.

I've heard of too many times where Mr. DWI is driving at some high rate of speed and kills someone and his drunk ass walks away with a few scratches.

And it sounds like you don't even know what a "straw man argument" is :-(

[wtmusic]

40. The victim is dead primarily because Mr. DWI is drunk

"The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position."

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

You have misrepresented gun control by attempting to equate an activity which involves risk to onesself vs. one that involves risk to other people.

[SteveM]

64. Post #50 brought up a question for you. It remains unanswered.

[iverglas]

34. I speed every time I'm on a highway

and my speed has never killed anyone, including myself.

Just like all those firearms our firearm-owning friends here own: they've never killed anyone, including their owners.

My speeding is still illegal though. "Law-abiding citizens" don't get to speed. No matter how safely they can do it. They're subject to the same laws as everybody else.

Kinda like how "law-abiding citizens" where I'm at, in Canada, are subject to the requirement that they be licensed to possess firearms, register their firearms and store their firearms safely/securely, even if they would never use their firearms to cause harm.

There's always the chance that someone will leap out in front of a speeding driver whom s/he could have avoided hitting if s/he had been obeying the speed limit. There's always the chance that a law-abiding citizen might inadvertently transfer a firearm to a criminal by sale or theft if s/he does not follow the procedure mandated by licensing and registration laws and storage regulations.

I may speed on highways, but I don't speed on city streets; in fact, I drive way below the speed limit on little streets like the one I live on, and in school zones, and on busy downtown streets.

I'd probably do that, speed limit or no speed limit. But there are unquestionably people who observe the speed limit in those situations who would drive much faster if there were no speeding laws. They may just be "law-abiding", and/or they may perceive themselves as having something to lose if they get caught.

Many people will exercise extreme caution when selling firearms to be sure they aren't sold to criminals, and keep their firearms under lock and key to make sure they aren't stolen by criminals, laws or no laws. But there are unquestionably people who will not exercise such caution if there are no laws requiring it -- and who will exercise such caution if there are laws requiring it. Simply because they are "law-abiding citizens" with a conscience, and with something to lose if they are caught breaking the law.

Those are some far better analogies than we started out with here, I'd say.

[Irreverend IX]

52. So you willfully break a law passed to promote public safety.

Speed restrictions are for the little people, huh? You have no moral authority whatsoever to criticize anyone who breaks firearms laws. You could say "Well, I never speed when I think there's a chance I could hurt someone," but in that case you're making a personal judgment, and the whole point of laws is that they override personal judgments, since personal judgment is so often subjective and unreliable. A gun owner may think that they're putting no one in danger by breaking a firearm storage law, while you may think they're being terribly irresponsible.

[iverglas]

53. yup, I do

Speed restrictions are for the little people, huh?

Eh? Did I say that? Did I imply it? Are you asking this dishonest question in order to make me look nasty? No, no and yes, I'd say.

I break the law.

Does that mean there is no law?

As far as I know, there is still a law.

Unlike the situation to which the analogy was being made, in which there is no law. Remember the topic of conversation?


You have no moral authority whatsoever to criticize anyone who breaks firearms laws.

That's nice. If only we were talking about someone breaking firearms laws, eh? Then you might have a point, instead of no point.


A gun owner may think that they're putting no one in danger by breaking a firearm storage law, while you may think they're being terribly irresponsible.

Good for them.

I don't know what this is all in aid of, but what.ever.


I sure hope you've never jaywalked. If you have, you've lost all moral authority to criticize anyone for anything. Murder, robbery, speeding. I think I can assume you've jaywalked, so I'll just ignore any further righteous indignation coming from your direction.

[iverglas]

54. by the way, there's a post waiting for your attention

I'm sure you could easily miss it, so here you go:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=170607&mesg_id=170803

[YOY]

7. dude, you've posted two threads about the 2nd Amendment

You'd be surprised how many here support it...

and surprised how little firearms can protect you from economic downturns, biological/chemical warfare, infrastructure collapse, global warming, etc...

[bossy22]

13. true

thats why i be votin for whoever the democrat is

[YOY]

15. You "be votin' for whoever the democrat is"

Nice little fake ebonics you got goin' there...

[bossy22]

18. i dont think its ebonics anymore

its kinda become mainstream- ebonics now is like hard-core Mr T stuff...or that funny clip on how to speak ebonics....oo that was funny

[unpossibles]

20. I like the analogy between guns and cars

Are you suggesting we have more stringent testing requirements for gun ownership the way we do for driving?

Also, can you please show me (a) where the Constitution addresses driving and (b) how people can ride their guns to work?

[bossy22]

21. i guess

you can use teh recoil from a big enough gun to get yourself to work....it will cost alot in ammo though

[sinkingfeeling]

32. "Is the benefit to the public good worth losing your right to speed? " - Absolutely, since you nor

anybody else has a right to speed!

[Hidey]

33. Do you work for Winchester or something?

nt

[ogsbee]

36. Why don't we expand this to a discussion of the Bill of Rights?

I believe the ten rights (the first ten amendments to the constitution, just looked it up) stand or fall together. Which ones are more important to you, which ones are you willing to do without for group safety? If we state support for the whole Bill of Rights as a unit I believe that could be a rallying cry that could unite conservatives and liberals in defense of the constitution.

(In terms of the automobile example, it seems many posters are not concerned about the growing nanny state, the growing infantilization of the consumer/citizen. It seems we are headed to a computerized future where we just type in the destination coordinates and then just sit back and play checkers (while the computers store the travel coordinates forever). I even hate those cars that park themselves, where's the pride of a job well done? Performance cars now are partly driven by computerized traction control. The circles of freedom, choice, and the accomplishments of ability, training and responsibility are becoming increasingly smaller or even irrelevant. Almost might as well be barnyard animals.)

[gorfle]

58. Cannons

I've often thought if you really wanted to stop speeding you'd simply mandate that manufacturers can't make cars that travel more than 70 MPH period, and can't travel faster than 55MPH unless they have continuously traveled at that speed for at least 15 minutes.

Or, mount a radar-controlled cannon on the sides of roads that blow speeding cars into bits. Now that would put a damper on speeding! :)