Non-IT News Thread
-
Sorry I must be tired.
Laws only stop people who are law abiding. Anyone who wants to do something badly enough will do it no matter what (the law says).
For example the law says I can't murder a person, but could easily commit murder. Adding new laws are just creating new avenues for lawyers to prosecute people who are breaking the existing laws. (more often than not).
-
The whole reason that the second amendment is there is to protect your freedom. Granted today the populous having weapons really doesn't protect it much from the tyranny of an oppressive government, because the government has so many more resources to buy bigger and better guns/weapons/tactical gear, etc - but back in the 1700's that was the point of it. It's purely about freedom.
Now, does it mean that you can do bad things with it - oh hell yeah it does - but is that a good enough reason to remove your freedom stick?
Laws are a way to punish people for doing something illegal? I thought laws are what dictated that something was illegal - it might go so far as to say, when you break the law, then here is the punishment - but not always.
-
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
The whole reason that the second amendment is there is to protect your freedom. Granted today the populous having weapons really doesn't protect it much from the tyranny of an oppressive government, because the government has so many more resources to buy bigger and better guns/weapons/tactical gear, etc - but back in the 1700's that was the point of it. It's purely about freedom.
You may want to look into the historical relevance of the 2nd amendment. It wasn't about freedom, per-say, it was a means of ensuring a militia was armed and had the ability to be called on a moments notice. Just after the Revolutionary war we had a money problem and had issues finding funds to deploy and support a national army.
-
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
Laws are a way to punish people for doing something illegal?
<snip>Only if the person doing them gets caught.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
Sorry I must be tired.
Laws only stop people who are law abiding. Anyone who wants to do something badly enough will do it no matter what (the law says).
For example the law says I can't murder a person, but could easily commit murder. Adding new laws are just creating new avenues for lawyers to prosecute people who are breaking the existing laws. (more often than not).
The original laws are there, not to stop law abiding, but to give righteousness to the law abiding in prosecuting those who break them.
Why do we need more laws? that's a great question - a criminal certainly doesn't care if he's breaking one law or 100, he's doin' what he wants. The problem is that we aren't prosecuting them fully against the laws we already have. We don't execute the laws already on the books - but no.. we can't fix that - so we'll just create new laws, which will be just as ineffective, but hey... the above mentioned people will be happy because they think we're doing something when we pass new laws, so we'll pass new laws.
-
Yeah most laws today aren't doing much of anything useful. (read most of them) Some protect wildlife habitats, or other good things.
But most are just completely useless, wasteful of resources, and a means of profiteering from the public.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
Yeah most laws today aren't doing much of anything useful. (read most of them) Some protect wildlife habitats, or other good things.
Don't make me tell you about the owls and the stupidity of "protecting" them by banning clear-cutting.
-
@travisdh1 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@DustinB3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
Yeah most laws today aren't doing much of anything useful. (read most of them) Some protect wildlife habitats, or other good things.
Don't make me tell you about the owls and the stupidity of "protecting" them by banning clear-cutting.
Can you share some more there?
-
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@tonyshowoff said in Non-IT News Thread:
it just says a lot that most Americans gauge success of congress based on how many laws they pass.
They do? Where is that they you are talking about? Most people I've talked to agree that more laws, other than an ultimate law (such as the outright outlawing of guns) rarely seem to do anything about the problems we have today. Anything short of that (and even that) when we don't enforce the laws that already exist is just mindless dribble, more often dribble that just empowers someone else to stick their hand in pockets even more - Obama care (now the uninsured get to pay the government a fee because they are uninsured.. yeah that makes sense!)
Passing laws and management are two different things, you can make all the rules you want, but if they're not followed, improperly followed, too vague to follow, or there's no money to follow them, then they're useless.
Agreed.
That's actually an oft quoted statistic by the media to say that Congress is useless. It's actually just about the only measurement of Congress I've ever heard mentioned.
-
@tonyshowoff said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
They do? Where is that they you are talking about?
It's something I've seen a lot of. Just because you don't talk to enough of the right people or read it, does not mean it doesn't happen. It is something people on the right tend to notice, however:
"Voters tend to believe a lot of myths about how American government works: things like the majority should always have its way, that popular ideas automatically deserve “up or down” votes and that Congress is more “productive” when it passes lots of laws. " Source
And that's just one example, and that was by googling: "success of congress based on laws passed", there are many other people who mention this, and as I said, mostly on the right to far right. I have, however, actually seen hyper liberals say this stuff on Facebook, typically doing something such as comparing number of laws passed by a Democratic Congress vs Republican one, and suggesting that more laws means something is getting done.
It's true. I never hear Americans talk about the government with correct information. People say "democracy" but America is not and was explicitly not to be a democracy. The founding fathers thought that democracy was a terrible idea (and i agree.) The American system is very anti-Democracy, yet the people who espouse it always point to the founders... apparently knowing nothing about them.
Or that America was founding on religious freedom. WTF. America was founding specifically to allow for the non-religious freedom. It's the anti-religious freedom country. The pilgrims had too much religious freedom in Europe (Holland specifically) and left because they could not maintain their cult when their kids had the freedom to explore other religions and see how happy people were living outside of their hate filled community. Maryland was founded to be a Catholic colony, apart from the church of England.
-
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@travisdh1 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@DustinB3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
Yeah most laws today aren't doing much of anything useful. (read most of them) Some protect wildlife habitats, or other good things.
Don't make me tell you about the owls and the stupidity of "protecting" them by banning clear-cutting.
Can you share some more there?
Fine, have it your way.
So someone claimed that the barn owl population was plummeting due to clear cutting back in the 90s. "Where are the owls going to live?" they asked, all the freaking time. "You're taking away their home!" they cried. As it turned out, the barn owl population was actually exploding. For some reason, large birds need large, open areas to hunt in. Whoda thunk it huh? Kinda reminds me of the Polar Bear situation today.
-
@dafyre said in Non-IT News Thread:
@tonyshowoff said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
They do? Where is that they you are talking about?
It's something I've seen a lot of. Just because you don't talk to enough of the right people or read it, does not mean it doesn't happen. It is something people on the right tend to notice, however:
"Voters tend to believe a lot of myths about how American government works: things like the majority should always have its way, that popular ideas automatically deserve “up or down” votes and that Congress is more “productive” when it passes lots of laws. " Source
And that's just one example, and that was by googling: "success of congress based on laws passed", there are many other people who mention this, and as I said, mostly on the right to far right. I have, however, actually seen hyper liberals say this stuff on Facebook, typically doing something such as comparing number of laws passed by a Democratic Congress vs Republican one, and suggesting that more laws means something is getting done.
I have always equated more laws with less freedom... I have enough common sense to believe there are some laws that are worth having. But why should it be illegal to carry ice cream cones in my back pocket on Sunday?
That might be the trend, but I'm not sure. The thing is is that it's the kind of laws that matter. Some laws increase freedom, some decrease it. And in the end... what is freedom?
-
One of the biggest issues with any discussion like this is that "freedom" isn't a real thing, or at least not a solid thing. Americans have "freedom" drilled into them their entire lives and the word is thrown about without much thought, as if all freedom is good and that more is always better. That's purely an Americanism and most of the world does not agree.
For example... the Massachusetts Bay Colony was established for the express purpose of curtailing the freedom of individuals to worship as they pleased. The colony had "religious freedom" in that the founders had the right to "own" everyone who lived there and they had the freedom to force any religious rules or laws that they wanted (a lot like NC now.) The "freedom" was the freedom to control and existed only for the leaders of the colony.
The lack of freedom was that the individuals had no rights, none. They could not vote, they could not choose their religion. They didn't really even have the right to leave.
Was it more or less free? As with all of these things, one person's freedom is another person's oppression. Freedom is neither good nor bad on its own.
-
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@DustinB3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
Sorry I must be tired.
Laws only stop people who are law abiding. Anyone who wants to do something badly enough will do it no matter what (the law says).
For example the law says I can't murder a person, but could easily commit murder. Adding new laws are just creating new avenues for lawyers to prosecute people who are breaking the existing laws. (more often than not).
The original laws are there, not to stop law abiding, but to give righteousness to the law abiding in prosecuting those who break them.
Why do we need more laws? that's a great question - a criminal certainly doesn't care if he's breaking one law or 100, he's doin' what he wants. The problem is that we aren't prosecuting them fully against the laws we already have. We don't execute the laws already on the books - but no.. we can't fix that - so we'll just create new laws, which will be just as ineffective, but hey... the above mentioned people will be happy because they think we're doing something when we pass new laws, so we'll pass new laws.
A great example of this... New York has always had a law that you can't drive while distracted. But then they made a law about using cell phones while driving. Um.. why? Does the new law indicate that the state does not believe that cell phones are distracting and so are not illegal for safety reasons (since that was already covered) but is illegal only as an avenue to generate revenue? that's how I read making a seemingly redundant law. And that's why cops are allowed to use cell phones but are otherwise required to drive safely... because the state believes that cell phones are not distracting or dangerous.
-
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
The whole reason that the second amendment is there is to protect your freedom.
To protect your freedom by having the ability to easily take away your neighbour's freedom. I don't think that that is why that was added to the law.
-
@coliver said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
The whole reason that the second amendment is there is to protect your freedom. Granted today the populous having weapons really doesn't protect it much from the tyranny of an oppressive government, because the government has so many more resources to buy bigger and better guns/weapons/tactical gear, etc - but back in the 1700's that was the point of it. It's purely about freedom.
You may want to look into the historical relevance of the 2nd amendment. It wasn't about freedom, per-say, it was a means of ensuring a militia was armed and had the ability to be called on a moments notice. Just after the Revolutionary war we had a money problem and had issues finding funds to deploy and support a national army.
It was also important for defending the frontier when we had no military there and we had wild boundaries with hostile colonial enemies (England and France) looking to expand into the territory.
-
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
Now, does it mean that you can do bad things with it - oh hell yeah it does - but is that a good enough reason to remove your freedom stick?
Guns are not freedom sticks today. They might have helped with freedom once upon a time. Now, they are only serve to take away freedom and safety. Weapons are not the implements of a free society, they are the resort of a terrified one. If you feel that guns are needed today, it implies to me that deep down you don't feel that you have freedom.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
The whole reason that the second amendment is there is to protect your freedom.
To protect your freedom by having the ability to easily take away your neighbour's freedom. I don't think that that is why that was added to the law.
A person is not free to come into my house uninvited. The law calls that breaking & entering. Common sense tells me to judiciously defend my family as necessary, and I will do so.
-
My take on freedom is not so much as the loosely defined essence of doing what you want, when you want to whomever you want.
As @scottalanmiller the actual definition of freedom is very fluid and varies from person to person... For me, it is the ability to live my life without having to answer to the government every time I say a prayer, walk around my neighborhood, talk with my neighbors, and support my family. Freedom is also defending my family from folks who wish to do us harm.
-
@dafyre said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
The whole reason that the second amendment is there is to protect your freedom.
To protect your freedom by having the ability to easily take away your neighbour's freedom. I don't think that that is why that was added to the law.
A person is not free to come into my house uninvited. The law calls that breaking & entering. Common sense tells me to judiciously defend my family as necessary, and I will do so.
But common sense also would tell you that statistically the gun is more dangerous to your family than the person breaking and entering. So judiciously you'd avoid the gun and take your chances with the person who might break and enter.
What I consistently find surprising is how many Americans are convinced that they must defend their homes. Why does everyone feel that someone breaking into their homes is such a likely risk that they would take on the cost, responsibility and statistical danger of having guns in the home? It's like in IT implementing HA without verifying the need - most companies that implement HA do so in the wrong way taking on more risk than if they had just skipped it. The risk that they are protecting against is small and unlikely while the risk that they take on to mitigate it is large and certain.
The fear of needing to defend the home so certainly I would equate to not being free.
