« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5]   Go Down

Author Topic: The List  (Read 1237 times)

Offline Maverick

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13920
The List
« Reply #60 on: March 12, 2005, 08:57:08 PM »
The original point of the thread is certainly toast. Thanks beet.
Logged
DEFINITION OF A VETERAN
A Veteran - whether active duty, retired, national guard or reserve - is someone who, at one point in their life, wrote a check made payable to "The United States of America", for an amount of "up to and including my life."
Author Unknown

Offline Toad

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18415
The List
« Reply #61 on: March 12, 2005, 09:02:48 PM »
Mav, I don't think he can get over the fact that we tossed them out in 1776 because of their nannying then.
Logged
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!

Offline beet1e

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7848
The List
« Reply #62 on: March 13, 2005, 02:13:14 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Maverick
The original point of the thread is certainly toast. Thanks beet.
You're welcome, have a nice day.  :cool:

As for ridiculing laws because "criminals will ignore them anyway", the same could be said for any laws. Tax laws, driving laws, weights and measures... the justification for NOT having a law, in some camps, seems to be that it won't be 100% successful, or won't be observed by 100% of the population.
Logged

Offline Nash

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11705
      • http://sbm.boomzoom.org/
The List
« Reply #63 on: March 13, 2005, 02:19:52 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by beet1e
As for ridiculing laws because "criminals will ignore them anyway", the same could be said for any laws. Tax laws, driving laws, weights and measures... the justification for NOT having a law, in some camps, seems to be that it won't be 100% successful, or won't be observed by 100% of the population.


Hmm... I don't think that's ever been said. Neat when that happens.
Logged

Offline beet1e

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7848
The List
« Reply #64 on: March 13, 2005, 02:28:08 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Maverick
The original point of the thread is certainly toast. Thanks beet.
...and don't forget to thank Toad too. I wasn't talking to myself in this thread.
Logged

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
The List
« Reply #65 on: March 13, 2005, 09:46:21 AM »
well... criminals do ignore laws that is true but beet is correct that we need to make them even if we don't get 100% compliance if... they don't punish the law abiding and if they have a reasonable chance of detering the criminal..

In this vein.. gun control laws allmost allways punish the law abiding 100% yet do little to deter the criminal..  Gun crime penalties on the other hand do 0% to punish the law abiding but have a measureable affect on detering the criminal.

For instance... disarming a city makes it more vulnerable to crime and punishes/takes away human rights of only the law abiding and a small fraction of criminals... Making heavier penalties for using a gun in a crime does nothing to punish the citizen yet deters the criminal.

Proof is out there.. even in england... draconian penalties for gun crimes (even owning one or protecting yourself with one is a crime there) the draconian penalties are the only way that anyone (criminal and suject alike) will comply to any extent.

here.. it has been proven over and over that more guns and CC allowed equals less crime.

lazs
Logged

Offline SOB

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10138
The List
« Reply #66 on: March 13, 2005, 12:08:23 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Curval
BROOKFIELD, Wis. - A gunman opened fire Saturday at a church service being held at a hotel, killing four people and sending several others to hospitals, authorities said.

...

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

More bang bang in gun heaven.

I think your next step should be to contact the family of the victims to let them know that this wouldn't have happened if they didn't live where gun ownership is legal.  You're a class act.
Logged
Three Times One Minus One.  Dayum!

Offline capt. apathy

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4240
      • http://www.moviewavs.com/cgi-bin/moviewavs.cgi?Bandits=danger.wav
The List
« Reply #67 on: March 13, 2005, 12:08:37 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by beet1e
You're welcome, have a nice day.  :cool:

As for ridiculing laws because "criminals will ignore them anyway", the same could be said for any laws. Tax laws, driving laws, weights and measures... the justification for NOT having a law, in some camps, seems to be that it won't be 100% successful, or won't be observed by 100% of the population.


the problem is we aren't talking about ridiculing a law simply because criminals won't obey it.

what we're talking about is already having a law that makes an activity illegal (shooting people without cause) and certain people are breaking that law.  we're ridiculing the idea that people think you can add an additional law that will for some reason be obeyed by those who don't seem to have a problem with murder.

for this to be of any use other than taking protection away from law abiding citizens (who's gun ownership has no impact on gun-crimes) you'd actually have to have a significant part of the population who have no problem committing murder but draw the line at owning a gun illegally, because that would be wrong.
Logged

Offline DREDIOCK

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17773
The List
« Reply #68 on: March 13, 2005, 12:14:19 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by capt. apathy
the problem is we aren't talking about ridiculing a law simply because criminals won't obey it.

what we're talking about is already having a law that makes an activity illegal (shooting people without cause) and certain people are breaking that law.  we're ridiculing the idea that people think you can add an additional law that will for some reason be obeyed by those who don't seem to have a problem with murder.

for this to be of any use other than taking protection away from law abiding citizens (who's gun ownership has no impact on gun-crimes) you'd actually have to have a significant part of the population who have no problem committing murder but draw the line at owning a gun illegally, because that would be wrong.


The added laws are pointless. they are nothing more then feel good laws so some politition can say he passed a law.

If the original law isnt followed its highly unlikely any future law will be followed any better.

But at least they can say they passed a law.
Makes people think they actually did something.
Logged
Death is no easy answer
For those who wish to know
Ask those who have been before you
What fate the future holds
It ain't pretty

Offline DREDIOCK

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17773
The List
« Reply #69 on: March 13, 2005, 12:22:03 PM »
BTW. Somethign I was aluding to earlier and nobody either got or followed up on.

Didnt we have another McCarthy sometime back in the 1950's who also had lists?

Is there any relation between that  McCarthy and this one?

Are we entering another McCarthy Era?
Logged
Death is no easy answer
For those who wish to know
Ask those who have been before you
What fate the future holds
It ain't pretty

Offline Holden McGroin

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8591
The List
« Reply #70 on: March 13, 2005, 05:32:05 PM »
Quote
Didnt we have another McCarthy sometime back in the 1950's who also had lists?




Charlie McCarthy didn't have lists, he had termites.  

And apparently relations with Marylin Monroe.
Logged
Holden McGroin LLC makes every effort to provide accurate and complete information. Since humor, irony, and keen insight may be foreign to some readers, no warranty, expressed or implied is offered. Re-writing this disclaimer cost me big bucks at the lawyer’s office!

Offline DREDIOCK

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17773
The List
« Reply #71 on: March 13, 2005, 05:37:18 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Holden McGroin



And apparently relations with Marylin Monroe.


And who didnt besides you?:)
Logged
Death is no easy answer
For those who wish to know
Ask those who have been before you
What fate the future holds
It ain't pretty

Offline Nashwan

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1864
The List
« Reply #72 on: March 13, 2005, 06:02:42 PM »
Quote
for this to be of any use other than taking protection away from law abiding citizens (who's gun ownership has no impact on gun-crimes) you'd actually have to have a significant part of the population who have no problem committing murder but draw the line at owning a gun illegally, because that would be wrong.


Where do criminals get their guns?

They steal them off people who own them legally.

They get people who can buy a gun to make a straw purchase for them.

They buy them off legal gun owners at gun fairs and from classified ads.

They buy them from gun shops before they turn to crime, or before they get caught

In short, the route guns take to get to criminals is

Importer/manufacturer - dealer - criminal

or

Importer/manufacturer - dealer - legal owner - criminal


the supply of guns to criminals is dependent on the legal market for guns, restrictions on that restrict the supply of guns to criminals.


What astonishes me most about this thread is that there's an American who's been locked up for nearly 3 years without trial, because the administration says he's a terrorist.

No outcry.

There's a list of people not allowed to travel by air, because they are suspected of terrorism.

No outcry.

The same people are not allowed to by a gun.

Outcry.

Take away all their freedoms, lock them up, no problem, just don't try to stop them buying a gun.
Logged

Offline Toad

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18415
The List
« Reply #73 on: March 13, 2005, 07:41:13 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Nashwan


What astonishes me most about this thread is that there's an American who's been locked up for nearly 3 years without trial, because the administration says he's a terrorist. No outcry.
[/b]


Perhaps if there was a perception that the situation is being ignored there'd be a more vocal discussion.

However, his case got to the Supreme Court so it isn't like the situation is being ignored. It's working its way through our legal system.



Quote
There's a list of people not allowed to travel by air, because they are suspected of terrorism.

No outcry.
[/b]

So you're saying people suspected of terrorism should be allowed to fly, given the fact of 9/11? The problem is with the inaccuracies of the list and there HAS been "outcry" against this.


Quote
The same people are not allowed to by a gun.

Outcry.
[/b]

Quite wrong, I think. There is outcry but it's not because we want people suspected of terrorism to be allowed to buy a gun. Again, the outcry is that "the list" they use is woefully inadequate and inaccurate and the "listmakers" themeselves admit it.

Quote
Take away all their freedoms, lock them up, no problem, just don't try to stop them buying a gun.


No, get the list right. THEN use it appropriately.
Logged
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!

Offline JB88

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10980
The List
« Reply #74 on: March 13, 2005, 07:43:20 PM »
So you're saying people suspected of terrorism should be allowed to fly, given the fact of 9/11? The problem is with the inaccuracies of the list and there HAS been "outcry" against this.

the problem is defining what a "terrorist" is.

the second problem is proving it.

the third problem is becoming one in the process.
Logged
this thread is doomed.
www.augustbach.com  

To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield. -Ulysses.

word.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5]   Go Up
« previous next »