PDA

View Full Version : USA Morals Question


03-19-2002, 01:25 PM
It seems like Goodlatte's bill to put huge restrictions on online gambling will suceed.


It is very easy to walk into stores throughout the USA and buy guns.


Do you think the morality of the law makers of the USA is skewed somewhat?


Keith

03-19-2002, 01:57 PM
I don't agree with the restrictions on online gambling but for sure it has ruined many lives.


I see absolutely nothing immoral about buying a gun. Do think gun owners are immoral?

03-19-2002, 02:21 PM
In a word, yes I think gun owners are immoral.


Guns have ruined more lives than online gambling, don't you agree?

03-19-2002, 02:37 PM
"In a word, yes I think gun owners are immoral."


It appears that you have religious and therefore unreasoned views on this subject so I don't want to get into a protracted argument with you about this.


"Guns have ruined more lives than online gambling, don't you agree?"


Of course they have. there are multiple wars and incidents of civil unrest occuring 24-7. The answer to the question of whether or not the guns, that U.S. citizens buy from stores, are responsible for ruining more lives than online gambling is not immediately obvious. I tend to think that the onlne gambling is more destructive but then I as a gun owner I'm biased. BTW, I've never shot anyone.

03-19-2002, 02:47 PM
Guns have also saved a lot more lives than gambling, don't you agree? Like, maybe, everybody in your country say. But aside from the practical realities, I just can't fathom this belief of yours, sorry. It really is akin to an animist view - an object worshipping view. To say that anybody's moral worth is determined by the possession of an inanimate tool is insulting.

03-19-2002, 02:49 PM
Are we talking only handguns and AR-15 type weopons here? Are we lumping in sportsmen here?


I tend to think that people who feel the need to carry a handgun have self esteem issues or are lacking in intelligence. I asked a guy I worked with years ago, "why do you carry a gun?" He responded that when he's walking down the street and someone won't get out of his way, that he'll just put his shoulder into them and bull them out of the way. So it gives him the confidence to stand up to those punks who refuse to get out of his way. Kind of like Bernie Goetz. The other people I dealt with were just morons. You know, people who make 25 or 30 grand a year, have 4 kids and another in the oven. At 24 years old! You know--retards. Does it make them immoral? I don't think so.


I like the line from the movie North Dallas Fourty--"A gun's just an extension of your dick, Joe-Bob."

03-19-2002, 03:10 PM
Yeah, that guy shouldn't have a gun probably. There are a lot more people who are much LESS confrontational when they pack. For instance, if some jackass shoulders them on the street, they are less likely to say something if they have a weapon. They know a confrontation with a lunatic could go very wrong so they just avoid it. But you probably don't know they carry. I bet the guy you knew advertised when, how, and what he carried. A lot of people are a lot more sensible and a lot quieter about their personal choices.

03-19-2002, 03:33 PM
I had lived 25 years before I saw a gun in real life... the regular police don't carry guns here.


The first time I saw a gun? The first day I was in the USA... I saw about 5 cops training guns over a kid spreadeagled over the hood of a cop car.


The ease of being able to get a gun in the States is truely frightening.


Perhaps if the lawmakers in the States spent a little more time trying to control gun crime, they would be able to leave online poker players alone.


BTW... HDPM... I am atheist so it is not religious objections. I just don't like the idea any crackpot can get ahold of a gun so easily.

03-19-2002, 03:51 PM
Is that your legislature is wasting alot of valuable time on this trivial issue when they could be doing more important business.

03-19-2002, 03:55 PM
Really, what individual lawmakers or voters may think is moral here is irrelevant.


Governments are expected to regulate immoral behavior, only except for where that regulation ratchets unwaveringly in one direction by increasing the power of the government to regulate, in which case the specific seed-path cannot be allowed, or it would quickly lead to an unstoppable despot machine.


So, even if their purpose in regulating gambling was simply to collect protection money, it would give them more money to buy votes, but would not give them an ability to prevent others from competing for votes and, therefore, power.


Guns and speech - but not gambling - preserve political competition, meaning competition for the right to regulate.


And the Constitution is designed to prevent political leaders from tricking you out of your freedoms by appealing to passing moral fads, whatever your opinion of guns or gambling.


eLROY

03-19-2002, 03:56 PM

03-19-2002, 04:01 PM
You can't change your constitution?


I would suspect gun crime is higher in the USA than any other country in the developed world.


Ever consider why that is?

03-19-2002, 04:02 PM
What you're missing, Hawk, is that for guns to be regulated, someone would have to regulate them. And that is where you run into the problem.


Since when have guns been dangerous in the hands of citizens, but safe in the hands of governments?


Or, why don't governments just regulate murder and accidental death, which is what you really don't like?


eLROY

03-19-2002, 04:10 PM
"You can't change your constitution?"


Hey bro the constitution was ammended to give citizens the right to bear arms. It was part of the Bill of Rights and if we start seeing the Bill of Rights nullified you'll really see some action from USA citizens and it won't be pretty.

03-19-2002, 04:11 PM
As we addressed in another series of posts, the reason violent crime is higher in the US and in Britain over Germany is because we are tolerant of cultural freedom, social heterogeneity, immigration, and so forth.


In short, we allow dirtbags to go about their business, and don't put them in jail unless they shoot one another.


Oh, and yes, we can change our Constitution. In fact, we can hold a Constitutional Convention and rewrite the whole darn thing. And, if we did that, the only new rule we could all agree upon would be "Everybody gets cake." Wouldn't that be nice?


And of course, we'd grant total authority to a central cake-procurement-and-distribution militia, who would have the power to come into our homes and indenture us into cake mines if we weren't deemed to be making an orderly contribution to the national cake quota.


What, you don't like cake? That's kind of antisocial, if not downright immoral, don't you think?


eLROY

03-19-2002, 04:15 PM

03-19-2002, 04:18 PM
I am sure they didn't envisage guns that could enflict the damage seen at such places as Columbine.


Situations change.

03-19-2002, 04:19 PM
'I would suspect gun crime is higher in the USA than any other country in the developed world. '


not true. those countries that have banned guns (britain, australia) have had skyrocketing crime rates. politicians in england *admit* more crime in london than in new york. it is recent, so dont quote 1990 stats. ive posted the links previously, cant take 10 minutes every single time one of you guys spouts propaganda.


if you visit arizona ill make a 1000 bet with you and well go to the library, ill take your money, and then we can go to a strip club or something.


brad

03-19-2002, 04:20 PM
another psychotropic deal. and plus theres probably some kind of a cover up there.


brad

03-19-2002, 04:23 PM
if you ever become involved in a confrontation, curl up in a ball and hope you are spared.


if youre family is attacked, its every member for itself.


dial 911. wait 30 minutes. repeat as necessary.


you have no rights. youre lucky to be allowed to live.


brad

03-19-2002, 04:23 PM

03-19-2002, 04:24 PM

03-19-2002, 04:25 PM
That damage was done with simple guns, little more than muskets. One of the students was shot by a police officer while trying to escape.


Like I said in another post, teenage boys used to carry their guns to school in New York city for after-school shooting clubs. And there have always been bullies.


Maybe, what has changed, is a lot of people like you and Hollywood types who take a totally mystical view of a small piece of metal, and of life in general.


Maybe it is accurate that people who think like you, Hawk, or who have been brought up by you - or who are spawned by a social-welfare Great Society the likes of which you would be inlciend to design - cannot be trusted with guns.


But certainly the sons of the Founding Fathers - and of the people who hold their beliefs dear to this day - can be trusted with guns.


eLROY

03-19-2002, 05:09 PM
Of course the Founding Fathers envisaged greater destruction potential than Columbine. After all, they saw the carnage inflicted by the King of England. Hmmm, did the Founding Fathers have to deal with something worse than two kids in trenchcoats and makeup? Nah, Columbine was more destructive than the whole Revolutionary War. Come on.


But the whole idea behind our kicking of England's ass with our guns was to become citizens, not subjects. We succeeded. The one thing you have to give communists is that they do know how to treat royalty.

03-19-2002, 05:17 PM
I would say it is probably the income gap between royals - the people who are plastered across the pages of every magazine to excess in Europe every day with their fancy clothes and wives - and the common citizen, that has resulted in so much gun violence in Europe.


Wait...ummm - Okay, I would say that it is because we shot all the royals in our country, and thereby shrunk the income gap, that we don't have any gun violence.


Hmmmm. Then I would say it is the fact the Kennedys allow guns in this country that we shot them all.


There:)


eLROY

03-19-2002, 10:47 PM
"It appears that you have religious and therefore unreasoned views..."


you obviously have unreasoned views towards religion. why such an attack on 'religion'?


i prefer to call it faith, but im pretty sure we're talking about the same thing. its a horribly biased judgement statement about something you are obviously biased against in any case. who are you to say that someone's religion is, by definition, unreasoned? such arrogance...

03-19-2002, 10:51 PM

03-19-2002, 10:58 PM
what kind of guns did you think they had? some sort of happy-guns? guns that scolded people? guns that slapped you on the wrist? guns exist as a tool to create physical disorder, and this has been true since the days of our constitution. musket rounds were just as likely to kill you if it pierced your skull as a bullet from an AK-47. in fact, you have a better chance of surviving a bullet-wound now because of our advanced medical options re: gunshot wounds.

03-19-2002, 11:01 PM
BTW, since something has changed, perhaps it has more to do with the society that the perpetrators in columbine were raised in. specifically, the breaking down of moral fiber in a community, to the point where murder and mass destruction no longer holds such moral taboo as it once did when our constitution was written.

03-19-2002, 11:12 PM
speaking of dialing 911 in an emergency, here's a little story.


in early march of last year, i was living in L.A. in a house of 9 people. our house was just off Ventura Blvd. in Studio City. our rommate's car was parked on Ventura, and we heard a crash outside. pretty loud. we went outside and sure enough it was his car that was hit. some lady (obviously doped up) was driving a rental mercedes and smashed into my friend's parked car. the patrons who were sitting across the street outside of the coffee shop had a perfect view of the whole thing, and some of them came over to offer their official testimony, etc. we dialed 911, as it was obvious that the lady driving was not completely ok. we were all able to determine that the lady was definitely high on illegal drugs. (we know what we're talking about when it comes to this subject) anyways, long story short, we called 911 6 times before we got any corporeal response. 3 times it was BUSY, twice we got disconnected, and the last time was still over 2 hours before any response came. lots of interesting stuff happened that night. while waiting for the police to respond, 4 different officers drove by, and about 8-11 of us were jumping and waving our hands in the air trying to flag the cops down. all such activity was greeted with a complete disregard by the police. it was also obivous that something was wrong on the side of the road other than 11 hoodlums jumping around.


911 is a joke.

03-20-2002, 07:30 AM

03-20-2002, 09:18 AM

03-20-2002, 10:12 AM

03-20-2002, 01:47 PM
Actually I didn't attack religion. All I said was that religious beliefs are unreasoned. Meaning that whatever dictates you hear from the pope or find in the Koran or whatever are not really open to debate and are not the result of any kind of scientific investigation. They are the "Word of God" so what use is it to argue?


"who are you to say that someone's religion is, by definition, unreasoned?"


Baggins, I think by definition religion is unreasoned and I'm really not alone in this.


For what its worth I do think organized religion is a load of crap and has generally wreaked havoc on the human race. But that's just my opinion.

03-20-2002, 03:42 PM
As a totally unrelated aside, what bill are you referring to? I can't find a single bill on the congressional internet site that indicates they are anywhere near passing any sort of internet gambling laws. Most of the bills look like they are dead in the water. If someone could give me the number of the pertinent bill, it would be much appreciated.

03-26-2002, 04:17 PM
you haven't taken a closer look at all that goes on in religion. you couldn't have. if you really believe that religions are all a bunch of mandates from some pope/dahlilahma/rabbi/guru than you have missed a great deal of intellectual thought that is happening in 'religion'. i don't care if other people agree with you. you and i are both smart enough to know that doesn't matter.