assault weapon ban

[RageBeoulve]

It is only a problem if you perceive it as such. And most people don't.

I'm afraid I have to disagree. Government officials making decisions based on their own emotions, or those of a collective of whiny people is a SERIOUS problem. Even if the majority does not yet perceive it. Its as if you have given a person who gets drunk twenty four hours a day (because really drunk people make lots of emotional decisions, with disastrous results) complete control of your life. It will be quite dangerous for you and everyone involved, no matter how they "perceive it".

[odeon]

Amateur psychology: you are not satisfied with this system either, but you are obsessed with stability, which you like to talk yourself into that this system provides. Am I not right?

Nope. There's no better alternative, that's all.

[odeon]

Odeon is uncomfortable with change.  That is his preference.  He should be free to pursue an un changeable life.

I loathe change.

[odeon]

It is only a problem if you perceive it as such. And most people don't.

I'm afraid I have to disagree. Government officials making decisions based on their own emotions, or those of a collective of whiny people is a SERIOUS problem. Even if the majority does not yet perceive it. Its as if you have given a person who gets drunk twenty four hours a day (because really drunk people make lots of emotional decisions, with disastrous results) complete control of your life. It will be quite dangerous for you and everyone involved, no matter how they "perceive it".

I disagree. In this case the system works because people do not perceive it as enough of a problem. It's not the same as the binge drinker's problem at all, because eventually his liver will be shot. We, on the other hand, can live through our lives thinking we are free.

[TheoK]

Amateur psychology: you are not satisfied with this system either, but you are obsessed with stability, which you like to talk yourself into that this system provides. Am I not right?

Nope. There's no better alternative, that's all.

In this case I was not talking about abandoning the state, just getting rid of the most stupid and freedom-infringing legislation.

[TheoK]

It is only a problem if you perceive it as such. And most people don't.

I'm afraid I have to disagree. Government officials making decisions based on their own emotions, or those of a collective of whiny people is a SERIOUS problem. Even if the majority does not yet perceive it. Its as if you have given a person who gets drunk twenty four hours a day (because really drunk people make lots of emotional decisions, with disastrous results) complete control of your life. It will be quite dangerous for you and everyone involved, no matter how they "perceive it".

I disagree. In this case the system works because people do not perceive it as enough of a problem. It's not the same as the binge drinker's problem at all, because eventually his liver will be shot. We, on the other hand, can live through our lives thinking we are free.

I don't get why you want to lie to yourself. And it's not carved in stone that a freedom-infringing system will exist for ever.

[odeon]

It is only a problem if you perceive it as such. And most people don't.

I'm afraid I have to disagree. Government officials making decisions based on their own emotions, or those of a collective of whiny people is a SERIOUS problem. Even if the majority does not yet perceive it. Its as if you have given a person who gets drunk twenty four hours a day (because really drunk people make lots of emotional decisions, with disastrous results) complete control of your life. It will be quite dangerous for you and everyone involved, no matter how they "perceive it".

I disagree. In this case the system works because people do not perceive it as enough of a problem. It's not the same as the binge drinker's problem at all, because eventually his liver will be shot. We, on the other hand, can live through our lives thinking we are free.

I don't get why you want to lie to yourself. And it's not carved in stone that a freedom-infringing system will exist for ever.

I'm not lying to myself. Reread the above carefully.

There's no better alternative, Lit. It doesn't mean the one we've got is good, only that it is better than the alternatives, in my not-so-humble opinion.

[TheoK]

Again: you don't have to abandon the state completely to have more freedom. You know very well that America 100-150 years ago had enormous individual freedom. Why are you in favour of the nanny state?

[odeon]

Again: you don't have to abandon the state completely to have more freedom. You know very well that America 100-150 years ago had enormous individual freedom. Why are you in favour of the nanny state?

You're kidding, right?

[TheoK]

Again: you don't have to abandon the state completely to have more freedom. You know very well that America 100-150 years ago had enormous individual freedom. Why are you in favour of the nanny state?

You're kidding, right?

No. At least for white people, who were the absolute majority, there was enormous freedom.

[odeon]

White males who were literate, lived in the right state, weren't poor and had the right background, maybe. And that's still just about the right to vote for someone who will then do the voting for you. You've been watching too many westerns on the telly.

[TheoK]

White males who were literate, lived in the right state, weren't poor and had the right background, maybe. And that's still just about the right to vote for someone who will then do the voting for you. You've been watching too many westerns on the telly.

No one back then questioned why anyone would have a gun. No one questioned one's right to self-defense. No one stopped anyone from putting what they wanted in their own body. In America 1913 you could buy heroin legally without any prescription. Compare that to not even being able to buy something as harmless as melatonin.

[McGiver]

To the kuiper belt with the two of you.

[TheoK]

 

[McGiver]