Legitimate Arguments Against the 2nd Amendment

[GMDino]

(02-22-2016, 11:59 AM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: I can only provide my own experience in this matter.

I have always found the need to make drinking and driving illegal to be kind of insulting.

I have only done it one time, and realized how stupid it was almost immediately.  To the point of only going about 200 feet, and then stopping, getting out and throwing my keys away (another mistake that was).

I wound up sleeping in the back of my truck, found my keys the next morning, hit up a Burger King and went home for a shower.

I have found that attitude to be the same across all of those other countries.  Drink but not to get drunk, and if you do have too much to drink, then you act like an adult, which we are supposed to be when we are allowed to drink, and either sleep it off or call a cab or a friend.

I feel the same with murder and robbery.  I've never done either one.  Can't see why we need a "law" and "police" just to make us do the right thing.

[Sovereign Nation]

(02-23-2016, 12:20 PM)GMDino Wrote: I feel the same with murder and robbery.  I've never done either one.  Can't see why we need a "law" and "police" just to make us do the right thing.

Now you're thinking like an anarchist.

Most people won't actually murder and rob you.  Only a small percentage. 

I don't go around thinking... "Gee, I am glad it is against the law in murdering someone, because I just wouldn't be able to control myself.  Thanks Government is keeping me under control."

I know I am a little more self reliant than most people though.  So the small percentage doesn't scare me or any of my friends.  I can see how people with a little less self reliance would need the protection though.

[Sovereign Nation]

(02-23-2016, 12:04 PM)michaelsean Wrote: A lot of people don't drink and drive.  Especially now.  But a lot do.    I did.  All of the time up until the day before I quit drinking 25 years ago.  People are going to make occasional dumb decisions, and alcoholics will constantly make dumb decisions.  

Did the law influence your decision in any way?

[GMDino]

(02-23-2016, 12:44 PM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: Now you're thinking like an anarchist.

Most people won't actually murder and rob you.  Only a small percentage. 

I don't go around thinking... "Gee, I am glad it is against the law in murdering someone, because I just wouldn't be able to control myself.  Thanks Government is keeping me under control."

I know I am a little more self reliant than most people though.  So the small percentage doesn't scare me or any of my friends.  I can see how people with a little less self reliance would need the protection though.

So you are an anarchist.



And people who think police and laws are a good thing are "a little less self reliant".

I thought the internet tough guy was a thing of the past around here.

[*michaelsean*]

(02-23-2016, 12:45 PM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: Did the law influence your decision in any way?

It sure did when they suspended my license for 6 months.  Didn't drink and drive  once with 180 days hanging over my head.

[GMDino]

(02-23-2016, 12:53 PM)michaelsean Wrote: It sure did when they suspended my license for 6 months.  Didn't drink and drive  once with 180 days hanging over my head.

So you were too weak to do it on you own?    Pffftt.

[Sovereign Nation]

(02-23-2016, 10:43 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Anecdotal evidence like this is useless.  I have not seen an accident cause by drunk drivers in many many years.  What kind of rube would believe this means there have been none in the United States for many many years.

(02-23-2016, 11:35 AM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: Is that what you think you have?

An opinion based on fact?

So let's recap.

You asked me if I think the laws and licensing have an effect on our drunk driving deaths.

I said no.  I provided my own experiences (because it is my opinion).

You even provided an article about S. Korea that actually strengthened my stance.

All the while you keep stating that you have never seen a drunk driving accident, which isn't even pertinent to the question, but I assume that you are thinking (correct if I am wrong) that because you haven't seen one that means the laws are working.

You think the laws are preventing more deaths than what we have now.

You then have stated that I can't use my own anecdotal evidence, all the while using your own.

Yet to finish, I am the one that has crazy ideas.

OK Fred.  Time for the clap.

 

Even then Fred can't realize that his assumption isn't the same as the one that I am assuming.  They are 2  completely different assumptions.

My assumption is trying to pin point what Fred is getting at with his constant (I have never seen a drunk driving accident), I have even asked him to correct me if I am wrong in that assumption.  Which is that because he hasn't seen one that he thinks the laws are working.  That without the laws, he would thus see more of these types of accidents.

In his post, he is implying that I am assuming there is no drunk driving accidents in the US, and thus a rube.

So Fred, please clarify.... Why do you keep bringing up the "I have never seen a drunk driving accident" and how is it pertinent to this back and forth?

[*michaelsean*]

(02-23-2016, 12:44 PM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: Now you're thinking like an anarchist.

Most people won't actually murder and rob you.  Only a small percentage. 

I don't go around thinking... "Gee, I am glad it is against the law in murdering someone, because I just wouldn't be able to control myself.  Thanks Government is keeping me under control."

I know I am a little more self reliant than most people though.  So the small percentage doesn't scare me or any of my friends.  I can see how people with a little less self reliance would need the protection though.

Lots of people would commit more crimes if there were no punishment.  There are people I would absolutely find and beat senseless if I knew I wouldn't go to jail.  

[GMDino]

(02-23-2016, 12:55 PM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: Even then Fred can't realize that his assumption isn't the same as the one that I am assuming.  They are 2  completely different assumptions.

[fredtoast]

(02-23-2016, 12:51 PM)GMDino Wrote: So you are an anarchist.



And people who think police and laws are a good thing are "a little less self reliant".

I thought the internet tough guy was a thing of the past around here.

Isn't this the same guy who was so tough that he was crying for a "safe place" for white people to live?

And is constantly the victim of oppression at the hands of a small weak minority?

[fredtoast]

(02-23-2016, 12:55 PM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: So Fred, please clarify.... Why do you keep bringing up the "I have never seen a drunk driving accident" and how is it pertinent to this back and forth?

Because you claim that there was no problem with accidents involving drunk drivers JUST because you diod not see any.

Then I point out that accidents involving drunk drivers are a big problem even though I have never seen one in person.

Your argument was based on meaningless anecdotal evidence.  I was just pointing out how stupid and meaningless that is.  it proves nothing, and your opinion based on this is worthless.

[Sovereign Nation]

(02-23-2016, 12:51 PM)GMDino Wrote: So you are an anarchist.



And people who think police and laws are a good thing are "a little less self reliant".

I thought the internet tough guy was a thing of the past around here.

What an incredible leap in logic.  I am truly impressed. 

I have anarchistic tendencies, hence the name.  I find it funny that you need to be told not to do something.  When to me it is pretty cut and dry.  Are their consequences?  Yep.  They apply to everyone. 

You are less self reliant.  You need the protection of someone else in order to feel safe.  I don't. 

So nope not an internet tough guy.  Not even a tough guy.  Just guy that is pretty self reliant.  

[GMDino]

(02-23-2016, 01:07 PM)Sovereign Nation Wrote:

What an incredible leap in logic.  I am truly impressed. 

I have anarchistic tendencies, hence the name.  I find it funny that you need to be told not to do something.  When to me it is pretty cut and dry.  Are their consequences?  Yep.  They apply to everyone. 

You are less self reliant.  You need the protection of someone else in order to feel safe.  I don't. 

So nope not an internet tough guy.  Not even a tough guy.  Just guy that is pretty self reliant.  

All seriousness aside: Yes...someone told me not to kill or drive drunk.  There was a rule even if there was no law.

Laws simply provide a punishment from society vs from your mommy and daddy.

Obeying the law doesn't make one "less self reliant" any more than playing a tough guy on the internet who would tell the cops they have no authority over them make you "pretty self reliant".

[Sovereign Nation]

(02-23-2016, 12:53 PM)michaelsean Wrote: It sure did when they suspended my license for 6 months.  Didn't drink and drive  once with 180 days hanging over my head.

Well, then you support Fred's argument.  You feel that there is a need for laws because you aren't able to make better decisions.

After seeing the consequences being imposed on you by the state are you capable of thinking twice before getting in the vehicle.

I think differently than you.  When I had my moment of how stupid it was, it was because I realized how dangerous it was not only to myself, but others around me.

There are people like you and there are people like me.  Some people need the laws, others do not.

[GMDino]

(02-23-2016, 01:11 PM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: Well, then you support Fred's argument.  You feel that there is a need for laws because you aren't able to make better decisions.

After seeing the consequences being imposed on you by the state are you capable of thinking twice before getting in the vehicle.

I think differently than you.  When I had my moment of how stupid it was, it was because I realized how dangerous it was not only to myself, but others around me.

There are people like you and there are people like me.  Some people need the laws, others do not.

[*michaelsean*]

(02-23-2016, 01:07 PM)Sovereign Nation Wrote:

What an incredible leap in logic.  I am truly impressed. 

I have anarchistic tendencies, hence the name.  I find it funny that you need to be told not to do something.  When to me it is pretty cut and dry.  Are their consequences?  Yep.  They apply to everyone. 

You are less self reliant.  You need the protection of someone else in order to feel safe.  I don't. 

So nope not an internet tough guy.  Not even a tough guy.  Just guy that is pretty self reliant.  

Anarchy is a fun think to think of.  I read a ton of books that take place from 600-1300 England and Europe because there is an appealing nature.   The thing is, a lot of people die.  And are raped.  And are enslaved.  And starve when people take all they have.  

[GMDino]

(02-23-2016, 01:13 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Anarchy is a fun think to think of.  I read a ton of books that take place from 600-1300 England and Europe because there is an appealing nature.   The thing is, a lot of people die.  And are raped.  And are enslaved.  And starve when people take all they have.  

Not SN though.

He's "pretty self reliant".

[*michaelsean*]

(02-23-2016, 01:11 PM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: Well, then you support Fred's argument.  You feel that there is a need for laws because you aren't able to make better decisions.

After seeing the consequences being imposed on you by the state are you capable of thinking twice before getting in the vehicle.

I think differently than you.  When I had my moment of how stupid it was, it was because I realized how dangerous it was not only to myself, but others around me.

There are people like you and there are people like me.  Some people need the laws, others do not.

No you need the laws because of people like me.

[*michaelsean*]

(02-23-2016, 01:14 PM)GMDino Wrote: Not SN though.

He's "pretty self reliant".

Right up until the bigger guy decides he wants his stuff.  We all think of ourselves as the winners during anarchy, but very few are.  

[Sovereign Nation]

(02-23-2016, 12:57 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Lots of people would commit more crimes if there were no punishment.  There are people I would absolutely find and beat senseless if I knew I wouldn't go to jail.  

At one point I would agree with you on this.  However, a lot of our criminals are created due to arbitrary laws.

Drugs being illegal

CC being illegal

underage drinking being illegal

contributing to the delinquency of a minor illegal

there are many more.

Now ask yourself, why would you go and beat these people senseless?  Is it because you are unable to control your temper?  Or are they deserving of your actions. 

If they are deserving, then would they act the way they are if not for the protection afforded to them by laws?

Basically, the person knew that if they are disrespectful to you that they would get their teeth kicked in, would they be disrespectful to you?  Or would they be more civil, knowing that there is a real life consequence to being boorish?

If someone insults you and they know they don't have to worry about the physical consequences and they haven't broken any laws, then you are left with a society that has people being rude to each other without consequence.