Subject:
|
Re: Trying to understand
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 16 Mar 2000 21:14:53 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
274 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bill Farkas writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Duane Hess writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bill Farkas writes:
> > >
> > > Clinton was just on TV not 15 seconds ago (11:20PM EST) saying how we need
> > > these measures so that no more children need to die like that six year old
> > > girl. Look, I have a six year old son and a four year old daughter, I cannot
> > > fully imagine the utter anguish this mother must be feeling, but none of • these
> > > measures would have prevented her daughter's death. The people who had that • gun
> > > wouldn't have followed the rules - the gun was stolen for crying out loud.
> >
> > If the gun had a trigger lock when the thief found it, would he have stolen • it?
> > He probably would have. It sure would have taken a lot more effort on his • part
> > to remove the lock and get the gun into working condition. I'm also assuming
> > that he didn't know how a gun was to be treated since he left it loaded where • a
> > 6 year old could get to it.
> >
> > > This ballistic fingerprint is, by their own admission, only effective if a
> > > crime has already been committed.
> >
> > True, but it would help to bring the criminal to justice after the fact.
> >
> > > This is the kind of nonsense that frustrates so many.
> > > And then some Congresswoman says that the NRA doesn't represent America, "we
> > > do" speaking of herself and others on stage. Who does she think the members • of
> > > the NRA are? They're the same citizens she claims to represent.
> > >
> > > We are all upset by the actions of such heartless killers, but this is not • the
> > > answer. The fact is that if more people had guns there would be less such
> > > incidents - the numbers don't lie. Criminals are basically cowards and prey • on
> > > the weak. Too many restrictive laws will ensure that they are better armed • than
> > > the good guys. And before anyone says that that's what the police are for -
> > > they too can only act after a crime is underway - many people have been • killed
> > > after calling 911 asking for help only to be told that they couldn't do
> > > anything until a crime has been committed!
> > >
> > > These touchy-feely pure emotion liberal arguments are totally void of commom
> > > sense and/or logic. This is the problem of being ruled by emotions. Doing
> > > something is not always better than doing nothing, especially when we
> > > incrementally loose our liberties.
> >
> > What liberties are we losing? Please enlighten me.
>
> No need to be so smug.
Smug? I didn't see any of my liberties being threatened. That was why I was
asking.
>
> For one, we lose the liberty of choosing what to do with the additional money
> we are required to shell out - regardless of how small the amount.
The increase in price of a gun with a trigger lock would more than likely go
towards defraying the gun manufacturers added cost of making or purchase the
lock. You would be "choosing" to buy the lock when you buy the gun, the same
way you are "choosing" to buy the seat belts when you buy a new car. I'm sure
you could buy each without, but that would be a "special" order, thus
increasing your costs.
On the other hand, even without the trigger lock the manufacturer could incure
additional costs and the price of the gun would go up. Would you still be
losing your financial liberty here as well?
> These types
> of things are always done incrementally. Look at tobacco. It started with
> warning labels, then "no smoking" areas in buildings and planes, then no
> smoking at all in certain buildings or planes and now lawsuits. It doesn't
> stop, as long as liberals think they can control your behavior and squeeze a
> buck out of it.
The restriction of smoking is intended to protect the public at large from the
effects of second hand smoke. Some people don't have the common courtesy to
know when their right to smoke is infringing on the right of other to breath
clean air. The cancerous effects of smoking are now costing the government
money through an increase in medical spending to try and nullify the cancer in
those who smoke, or have smoked. To recover these costs, the government has
gone to the source of the problem, the cigarette manufacturers. The
manufacturers have increased their prices to try and recover their costs to the
government. Now the smokers are, in a round about way, paying for the future
medical care that they will need.
That's where that money is going.
By the way, I see the same restrictions happening to the ringers on cell
phones.
> Now they're talking about taxing fatty foods(!) - oh, because
> they care. Puh-lease, all they care about is manipulation and money. For the
> whole seat belt thing read LarryP's posts. That started innocently enough.
> First they said they wouldn't pull anyone over just for that, but now they say
> they can and will.
I happen to agree that the police should have the ability to pull you over if
your *child* is not buckled in, but if you as an adult want to take the chance
of being ejected from the car, be my guest that's your decision.
> And what about that OSHA thing that almost happened.
Are you talking about the OSHA requirements for "at home" workers? Too hard to
enforce and an invasion of privacy. That's why it failed.
> This is
> where it always starts - and it ends in lost freedoms. Every penny we give
> away in taxes is lost freedom.
I pay my taxes to keep the level of freedom that I currently have.
>
> Bill
-Duane
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Trying to understand
|
| Duane, I have to nitpick here a little. (...) No, the government is going after money. The smokers are the reason why they have health costs, they should be responsible. They don't give a whit about the children, or people's health, or that money (...) (25 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
| (...) these (...) it? (...) a (...) of (...) the (...) on (...) killed (...) No need to be so smug. For one, we lose the liberty of choosing what to do with the additional money we are required to shell out - regardless of how small the amount. (...) (25 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
139 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
