jfields

I picked a date, but honestly, I'd jump any of the ones mentioned, or all of them.

So are many Americans. At least I didn't vote for him.

Me too. Going into the creepy zone. A few posts above mine, and the one I was responding to: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=573649#573649

Acid is way to mind-expanding for the right. What are the drugs that make you really, really paranoid and twitchy? (Not really picking on you, Chris, just left/right teasing.)

Would you believe you are providing the first real laughs and entertainment in this thread? Just who are "Guys like me"?

Excuse my bluntness, but this is a load of crap. What about the Christian "left-wingers" that support gun control? What about the people that are trying to preserve your ability to own guns, despite your own best efforts to alienate them? If you think this is a special plot against Christianity, perhaps your senses are a bit skewed. What cause are you accusing me of having? In the context of this conversation, I've said: If we have a law, we ought to enforce it. We have lots of laws we shouldn't. I'm not pushing for the specific ban of any weapons. All Americans are not agreed on firearm issues. Which of those is the "cause" I'm taking up. Please clarify. I'd love to know.

Come on. Grow up. Kevin and I totally disagree on this, but we can go back and forth on points and learn from each other without resorting to profanity and immature taunts. Before slinging insults, give a try to engaging in educated rational discussion. Before telling people to grow balls, consider engaging something much more fundamental, namely, your brain. If that is too much to ask, I apologize in advance.

No, really, it isn't. People in other countries can do that too. Here, like there, if you do that, you can be arrested, tried, convicted and sentenced to jail time. Being an American doesn't give an exemption from our own laws. Where America is different is that you have a right to a fair trial to determine guilt or innocence.

This puzzles me. I've never claimed to be as knowledgeable about gun laws as you, but doesn't it seem a bit odd to say that the ban was put into place because they can know who it applies to? That is like saying, "Because we can see who is tall, we are initiating a fee for everyone who exceeds 5'6". I don't see the cause and effect working in that direction.

Kevin, I'm not arguing with you on what is or isn't made illegal, or whether it even makes sense. I'm just saying that, for good or bad, sensible or not, AFTER something has been made illegal, I have no objection to enforcement of the law. I'm not saying the laws are perfect, or even always sensible, just that once the law is passed, it is past the point of most functional debate. At that time, lawful (by the books, etc.) enforcement can commence. I'm not saying storm trooopers ought to be brought in to terrorize people. Once again, of whatever functional value, a law is useless if not enforced. After a law is passed, the logical subsequent step is enforcement. That is all.

Mostly true. But as we progressed from colonial days, through the western expansion, industrialization and other phases to where we are today, things have changed. It is simply a fundamental process of cultural evolution. We are more crowded, more diverse, more prosperous and more interconnected than ever before. Those changes come with associated prices. Some level of oversight for the common good is one of those prices. There were days before we had police. Before we had an Army. Those groups, like a registration list, can be either used or misused. The list is not the spark that prompts gun confiscation. The list is admittedly an accellerant (sp). 1. Certain weapon gets outlawed. 2. List is used to help confiscate weapons mentioned in 1. If you hold the line on number 1, then number 2 is moot. We are debating a subtlety. You are against both. I am generally against the 1, but not 2. I can see the occasional positive uses of a registry making it worthwhile, since it does not actually hinder your right to own a legal weapon responsibly. It only hinders your right to own an illegal weapon. I'm not debating the decision to make a weapon legal or illegal. The registry does not effect that.

We'll just have to disagree. The registration itself in no way hampers either your alleged right to own a weapon or the legality of owning a weapon. It is merely a list. Just like the Motor Vehicle Administration, the Selective Service, Social Security, or any other list. Correct. Debateable. If it were clear cut, the Supeme Court wouldn't have seen so many cases, with results in both directions. As do you, whether we are talking about guns, cars or property.

So says Thoreau. Is part of that moral obligation to be a knowledge and active citizen as well? Before disobeying "unjust" laws, are you also morally obligated to fight them before they are enacted? Are you obligated to actually do anything, such as vote, demonstrate or write your elected officials? I say yes. While I'm sure you don't fall into this category, I say the whiners that do nothing to prevent things to which they object have not fulfilled the prerequisites to morally entitle them to civil disobedience. Retroactive anger and childish posturing do nothing. Those same people often also dodge personal responsibility for their actions. They aren't willing to put forth any effort to stop the laws, nor are they willing to let themselves be taken away in handcuffs for publicly breaking them.

What good comes from a centralized database of car ownership? Recovery of stolen property and assistance in identifying people who habitually violate the law. As a driver that obeys the law, I have nothing to fear from the database. It can actually help me. Is registering with the selective service bad, because that is the list that would be used in the event they ever started up a draft? Or is it part of our civic duty, to both register, and to challenge the need to use the list on any given occasion? Lets focus on the problem here. I don't know the details about the incident. 1. Did a law get passed that said certain guns were illegal? 2. Did the law itself allow for confiscation? 3. Did it specify a compensation for confiscated weapons? 4. Is the compensation fair? If 1, but not 2, then I have an equal problem if they went ahead and did it anyway. The police, like the citizens, must obey the law. If 1,2 & 3, but not 4, then you have a gripe against your lawmakers, but not against registration itself. The registration isn't what hurt you. In all these cases, the item that allowed the chain of events to begin is the law. That is where the battle should be, not over subsequent paperwork, which is all a registration is, in essence. Yes, I a sense, I do support that. Can you build a road, a stadium, a post office or an airport without getting the land? Do our laws allow for people to be forced to sell their land to the government so a municipal project can be undertaken? Yes. How would I feel? I'd be annoyed. If they didn't give me a fair value for my property, I'd be really pissed off. Does it happen? Yes. The system isn't perfect. To be somewhat hypothetical for just for a moment, isn't the very land your house is built on confiscated property if you look back far enough?

By "Suck up and deal", I mean, "Obey the law." That isn't saying you shouldn't object in court, demonstrate, vote, boycott and use every other lawful persuasion you can. But disagreement with a law does not grant exemption from it. We have the freedom to vote on issues, but then the obligation to abide by the results.

I'm not holding Europe up as any shining example. Like most things in life, everyone has some improvement to do. We just can't hold ourselves exempt from that. Our own report card as a nation would be far from straight "A"s. Like Kevin, I disagree. But for different reasons. We cannot show that strong united resolve and defiance, because "we", the American people, don't have a united opinion. I'm in favor of registration. So are lots of other Americans. Lots aren't. Welcome to our country. Land of the free... to argue about everything. I see registration as a good thing. It helps us keep track of the weapons, and who their rightful owners are. If a particular type of weapon is outlawed, registration aids in the efficient enforcement of the law. If you own that type of weapon, your objection shouldn't be the enforcement of the law, but the law itself. (Not talking about overzealous enforcement of things that aren't laws, just proper enforcement of those on the books.) If you are think the DUI limit should be higher than your state's limit, does that mean your method of disobedience should be to get in a drunken brawl with a cop that pulls you over? No. It means you should have fought the proposed law you didn't like. If the law passed anyway, just suck up and deal. That is a democracy. We all are held accountable to the laws our elected officials pass.

Okay. That I can deal with. Unfortunately, the exact same thing could be said of the US government. Yet we don't throw it away, we work to improve it.

You are entirely missing the point. I have not said we don't contribute in many ways to the UN. I said we hadn't paid our full dues. That remains true. I didn't say our dues weren't much larger than many other countries. What I'm getting at is a credibility issue. Whatever dollar figure we put down, or agree to, we need to supply. I'm not arguing about the size of the check, just that we should be good to our word. Is it a "bogus" organization because you disklike the goals, because we ignore them anyway, or because it is reflecting changing and unifying world attitudes that we don't share at the moment?

Economic Left/Right: -1.88 Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.31 Same quadrant, and fairly similar in that we both are farther from "center" on the Libertarian/Authoritarian than the Economic. From the discussions in the forums, the similarities are not surprising. Our single biggest difference is probably the gun issue.

[sarcasm] How many times do I have to scold you? Fighting terrorism isn't important. Besides, it is so damned inconvenient. It is the right to anonymously own weapons so I can get drunk and accidently kill someone with then thank my NRA lobbyists for the fact that the weapon and round can't easily get traced back to me that is important. See? Firearms registration is BAD. You Nazi! [/sarcasm]

[Sarcasm] But it so much easier and more fun to just get frothing mad about something you know nothing about. Really, NacMac! Reading, thinking and intelligent action just require TOO MUCH WORK! [/Sarcasm]

Thanks. But you had to quote me, typo and all, didn't you?

Or maybe, just maybe, the UN actually has some good ideas. Perhaps one of the problems in their effectiveness is that some major countries (including the United States) don't even pay the dues they've promised. So much for our reputation and the honor of a country's word. Perhaps another reason we are having so many "issues" with the UN is that we are shirking our self-proclaimed duty to be a thoughtful world leader, and instead are taking the role of playground bully. If we acted responsibly in the first place, perhaps we find ourself less conflicted with the UN. I'm not getting into the gun issue, since we've been over it a thousand times and I have a busy day. But I do think it is a stretch to go from disagreements about gun ownership to discussion of withdrawing funding from the UN (already essentially done) and bombings. If the whole world thinks you are a jerk, it might be time to consider that the whole world isn't wrong, and you are acting like a jerk.

Kevin, All I've missed is the part where the money is coming from. Ah, the tax cut! Whoops, I guess that doesn't work very well.

NacMac, Admitting you have a problem is the first step toward recovery.