Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Blue Devil

Your Liberty and Safety - Automobile Seat-belts, Vicious Dogs, and Self Defense Weapons - They are Treated Differently by the Government - Should They Be, or Not, and How/Why?

Recommended Posts

- Your Liberty and Safety - Automobile Seat-belts, Vicious Dogs, and Self-Defense Weapons -

They are Treated Differently by the Government - Should They Be, or Not, and How/Why?

 

 

All Three(3) of these Safety Devices are treated differently by the Government.

 

Automobile Seat-belts - Are required by law, and mandatory for all occupants in a moving vehicle.

Vicious Dogs - Of any kind require only a local license, and some sort of rudimentary temporary restraining system (leash) in public.

Self-Defense Weapons - Are either outright prohibited (both on the State and Federal level), or, heavily regulated, requiring a myriad of Laws, Licenses, Exclusions, and Conditions for both type and use.

 

Should they be, or not?

 

And How/Why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Statistically, the odds of encountering/drawing/firing more than Six(6) rounds to stop the threat, in a self defense situation?

 

Are about 1/6,000.

 

...Or, about 66% greater than the odds of ending up a Highway Fatality that same year. (1/10,000)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way I see it:

 

No one should be required to wear seat belts - this was an insurance industry mandated law.

 

Anyone who owns a vicious dog, which dog attacks someone off-property, or an invited guest, should be held responsible.

 

Anyone who has wild dogs roaming on their property, uninvited, should not be held responsible for attacks on others who wonder on your property.

 

If you have loaded firearms on your property and one of your kids kills himself or another family member - your problem, not society's.

 

If you have loaded firearms on your property and a someone else's invited child finds it and shoots self or someone - you should go to jail for allowing others access to a dangerous instrument.

 

If someone breaks into your home and steals a loaded gun and then kills others with it - not your fault, it's the criminal's fault.  Execute the criminal.  However, if you allow someone on your property and they take a loaded gun lying around and then commit a crime with it - you are responsible.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Skans said:

The way I see it:

 

No one should be required to wear seat belts - this was an insurance industry mandated law.

 

Anyone who owns a vicious dog, which dog attacks someone off-property, or an invited guest, should be held responsible.

 

Anyone who has wild dogs roaming on their property, uninvited, should not be held responsible for attacks on others who wonder on your property.

 

If you have loaded firearms on your property and one of your kids kills himself or another family member - your problem, not society's.

 

If you have loaded firearms on your property and a someone else's invited child finds it and shoots self or someone - you should go to jail for allowing others access to a dangerous instrument.

 

If someone breaks into your home and steals a loaded gun and then kills others with it - not your fault, it's the criminal's fault.  Execute the criminal.  However, if you allow someone on your property and they take a loaded gun lying around and then commit a crime with it - you are responsible.

 

 

Agree on the seat belt issue.

 

Personal Safety - is just that. Insurance companies can have hiders in their contracts that exempt coverage on non-restrained occupants.  The Government has no right to infringe on that liberty.

 

Vicious dogs - should be summarily shot when posing a threat. They are sentient beasts with a will of their own. Unrestrained, they will maim and kill.

 

Self Defense Weapons - should be carried at will. They are inanimate objects with no will of their own. They are useful for shooting vicious dogs... among other threatening thing needing shooting.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1.  Seat belts - wear one or don't.  I don't much care.  But if you end up in the hospital because you werent wearing one, your health insurance shouldn't pay the bill.  To some degree we all pay for some of everybody else's health insurance.  Particularly those of us who are not using the health insurance all that often.

 

2.  Vicious dogs - if your vicious dog injures or kills somebody due to your negligence, you should be going to prison.  How long?  Depends on how flagrant the negligence.

 

3.  Firearms should absolutely be stringently regulated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Communitarianism is a philosophy that emphasizes the connection between the individual and the community. Its overriding philosophy is based upon the belief that a person's social identity and personality are largely molded by community relationships, with a smaller degree of development being placed on individualism. Although the community might be a family, communitarianism usually is understood, in the wider, philosophical sense, as a collection of interactions, among a community of people in a given place (geographical location), or among a community who share an interest or who share a history.[1] Communitarianism usually opposes extreme individualism and disagrees with extreme laissez-faire policies that neglect the stability of the overall community.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/20/2020 at 1:56 PM, Blue Devil said:

 

Agree on the seat belt issue.

 

Personal Safety - is just that. Insurance companies can have hiders in their contracts that exempt coverage on non-restrained occupants.  The Government has no right to infringe on that liberty.

 

Vicious dogs - should be summarily shot when posing a threat. They are sentient beasts with a will of their own. Unrestrained, they will maim and kill.

 

Self Defense Weapons - should be carried at will. They are inanimate objects with no will of their own. They are useful for shooting vicious dogs... among other threatening thing needing shooting.

 

 

STUPID PEOPLE need to be saved from themselves for the common good

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PS - regarding the  seat belt issue.  I have a friend who was an Illinois state trooper for many years.  One day while discussing this seat belt issue, he said this to me...

 

"I never unbuckled a dead person."

 

Want to smoke cigarettes?  Want to share needles?  Want to drink a quart of vodka a day? Want to drive around unbelted?  Be my guest.  But when I'm king, all of you have to figure out how to pay for the medical bills you rack up due to your "freedom" to be stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, IkeBana said:

PS - regarding the  seat belt issue.  I have a friend who was an Illinois state trooper for many years.  One day while discussing this seat belt issue, he said this to me...

 

"I never unbuckled a dead person."

 

Want to smoke cigarettes?  Want to share needles?  Want to drink a quart of vodka a day? Want to drive around unbelted?  Be my guest.  But when I'm king, all of you have to figure out how to pay for the medical bills you rack up due to your "freedom" to be stupid.

 

And that is Liberty.

 

Common Sense - tells Adults that:

 

1. Seat-belts - are safer than unrestrained bodies.

2. Vicious Dogs - unrestrained, are dangerous.

3. Firearms - are tools, and are as safe or as dangerous as the operator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, guilluamezenz said:

the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few or the one 

 

 

Where does it say that in the Constitution of the United States?

 

It does say this, however:

 

Amendment II (1791)

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

 

Amendment IV (1791)

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

Amendment X (1791)

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Blue Devil said:

3. Firearms - are tools, and are as safe or as dangerous as the operator.

 

I believe the ridiculous pervasiveness of democratized gun carnage that has been going on in this country since the University of Texas tower shooting, clearly demonstrates that this culture is not mature enough, adult enough to be afforded a Second Amendment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, IkeBana said:

 

I believe the ridiculous pervasiveness of democratized gun carnage that has been going on in this country since the University of Texas tower shooting, clearly demonstrates that this culture is not mature enough, adult enough to be afforded a Second Amendment.

 

That's because our current society, thanks to Democrat National Socialism, now not only subsidizes Stupidity... it also encourages its propagation.

 

When I was a kid, anybody, even kids, could buy an M-1 Carbine w/ a 30-round magazine, mail-order, for ~ $75? No questions asked.

 

They were in the magazines, right next to the x-ray glasses.

 

Entitlement Welfare? None.

Number of School Shootings? 0.0

 

The Stupid - used to die quickly of starvation or exposure, or were either shot or went to prison for the crimes they committed to avoid that.

 

Either way, very few Stupid offspring.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Blue Devil said:

 

That's because our current society, thanks to Democrat National Socialism, now not only subsidizes Stupidity... it also encourages its propagation.

 

When I was a kid, anybody, even kids, could buy an M-1 Carbine w/ a 30-round magazine, mail-order, for ~ $75? No questions asked.

 

They were in the magazines, right next to the x-ray glasses.

 

Entitlement Welfare? None.

Number of School Shootings? 0.0

 

The Stupid - used to die quickly of starvation or exposure, or were either shot or went to prison for the crimes they committed to avoid that.

 

Either way, very few Stupid offspring.

 

 

 

Well OK...let's start by getting a little something straight.  You're obviously attempting to occupy some sort of experiential high ground with this post.  And that I'm some Democrat Socialist who wouldn't know an AR-15 or a Glock 21 if it bit me on the ass.

 

I suspect I know as much, if not more than anybody on this forum when it comes to the use of firearms designed for anti-personnel use.   And I posses firearm skills that will match anybody's here.   When I was a kid...OK a kid compared with the age I'm at now...

 

I qualified expert as a USMC recruit.  Firing the M-14, and performing an apparently seriously considerable feat of putting all ten rounds from theM-14 into the silhouette from 500 yards prone position, through a crappy peepsight on qualifying day.  Good enough that along with 6 or 7 others who shot 100% from 500 yards, it was suggested, and strongly encouraged, as nobody but a Marine Corps recruit during the Vietnam years could be encouraged by his DI's, to apply for Marine Scout/Sniper School upon completion of my ITR at Camp Pendleton.  I suffered the anticipated maltreatment for declining the offer.  The most interesting thing about this experience is how they pitched sniper school to us.  Did they focus on our patriotism?  No.  Did they focus on how we would be provided a specially honorable opportunity to protect our fellow grunts as snipers?  No.  The god and country stuff?  Absolutely not.

 

What they did was drag about a bunch of grisly photos of NVA and Cong sniper casualties.  People hit with rounds from such distances as to provide as much damage by a wobbling slug...y'know, entry wound in the shoulder, exit wound on the other side of the body under the ribcage, blowing an 8-10 inch wide hole in the victim.

 

That's when I realized what they were really looking for were sociopaths who would enjoy doing that kind of damage to another human being.  No thanks.  I was beaten mercilessly for my no thanks. 

 

So that's my background.  I actually support a ban on all handguns and semi-automatic firearms, pistols rifles with multi-round magazines.  The Second Amendment is there to support the kind of firearms that were available at the founding of the country.

 

PS - I later also qualified expert on the M1911.  Although that thing scared the bejezus outta me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, IkeBana said:

 

< irrelevant WOT>

 

... I actually support a ban on all handguns and semi-automatic firearms, pistols rifles with multi-round magazines.  The Second Amendment is there to support the kind of firearms that were available at the founding of the country.

 

< irrelevant>

 

You line of reasoning is duplicitous.

 

1. The Founders possessed State of the Art Military weaponry... the deadliest small arm on the Planet - in the History of man kind - the Pennsylvania Rifle.

2.

Amendment II (1791)

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

 

3. If the Second Amendment, which OTHER Constitutional constraint on the Government - by way of the "Bill of Rights" - is also time or technology sensitive, and why/not?

 

Your argument.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Blue Devil said:

 

You line of reasoning is duplicitous.

 

1. The Founders possessed State of the Art Military weaponry... the deadliest small arm on the Planet - in the History of man kind - the Pennsylvania Rifle.

2.

Amendment II (1791)

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

 

3. If the Second Amendment, which OTHER Constitutional constraint on the Government - by way of the "Bill of Rights" - is also time or technology sensitive, and why/not?

 

Your argument.

 

 

 

I've made my argument.  Debating the Second Amendment has been a waste of time for 50 years.  It's been bastardized into a scourge of democratized gun carnage.  That's my argument.

 

Some think gun rights are worth a classroom full if six year old lives.  I don't.  

 

And the question in the thread topic is specious right wing claptrap.  The three things have nothing to do with each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, IkeBana said:

 

I've made my argument.  Debating the Second Amendment has been a waste of time for 50 years.  It's been bastardized into a scourge of democratized gun carnage.  That's my argument.

 

Some think gun rights are worth a classroom full if six year old lives.  I don't.  

 

And the question in the thread topic is specious right wing claptrap.  The three things have nothing to do with each other.

 

You Opinion - is duly noted.

 

As for the OP - It addresses Three(3) different eminent dangers to Citizens - And how the Government addresses them Three(3) different ways - apparently irrespective of either Civil Liberties or the Constitution of the United States.

 

That is the Topic of this Thread.

 

Your unsupported opinion not withstanding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a liberal on this forum it might come to a surprise to some but one of my more right leaning positions is on guns. 

 

No I don't think you should be able to own a rocket launcher, grenade launcher or a tank but.... 

 

If you want to own an AR-15 the government has no right to tell you want you can and can't do. 

 

With this comes some stipulations, you have to be able to pass a background check, possible mental health check and being certified in your respective state. 

 

A lot of the issue when it comes to school shootings and mass shootings is that in the United States currently we are facing a Mental Health Crisis. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Blue Devil said:

 

You Opinion - is duly noted.

 

As for the OP - It addresses Three(3) different eminent dangers to Citizens - And how the Government addresses them Three(3) different ways - apparently irrespective of either Civil Liberties or the Constitution of the United States.

 

That is the Topic of this Thread.

 

Your unsupported opinion not withstanding.

 

Are seat belts (or motor vehicles) designed with the purposeful capacity to take human life?  No.

 

Are mean dogs trained with the goal of making them a weapon deadly to humans?  No.

 

Are handguns and assault weapons designed and built with this in mind?  Of course they are.

 

False equivalence...right out of the gate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/24/2020 at 5:04 AM, IkeBana said:

 

Are seat belts (or motor vehicles) designed with the purposeful capacity to take human life?  No.

 

Are mean dogs trained with the goal of making them a weapon deadly to humans?  No.

 

Are handguns and assault weapons designed and built with this in mind?  Of course they are.

 

False equivalence...right out of the gate.

 

So your argument is intent?

 

1. Seat Belts - are intended to prevent human injury/death. Why is it Against the Law Not to use them?

 

2. Vicious Dogs - are intended to inflict human injury/death, and they also possess a will of their own in that regard, requiring physical restraint to prevent it. Why can anybody have one?

 

3. Handguns and "Assault Weapons" - are intended to both inflict and prevent human injury/death, now, and at the time of this Nation's Founding. They were, and still are today, purpose built tools for Liberty and Security. The Founders knew this, as the Second Amendment to the Constitution directly cites a Militia, or ad-hoc civilian security, as to why both the ownership and carrying of those Handguns and "Assault Weapons"..."Shall Not Be Infringed." So why are they being infringed, contra to the highest laws of the United States, today?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/24/2020 at 8:04 AM, IkeBana said:

 

Are seat belts (or motor vehicles) designed with the purposeful capacity to take human life?  No.

 

Are mean dogs trained with the goal of making them a weapon deadly to humans?  No.

 

Are handguns and assault weapons designed and built with this in mind?  Of course they are.

 

False equivalence...right out of the gate.

Deadly dogs are trained every day.  They're  trained to be security  animals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, lucifershammer said:

Deadly dogs are trained every day.  They're  trained to be security  animals.

 

Do I need to start a new thread about the sort of scum who would train otherwise loyal, gentle, and loving creatures to be vicious and dangerous?

 

I'm apparently already in trouble for going off topic. 

 

IMHO still false equivalency.  A Sig Sauer P320 or an AR-15 "ain't good for nothin' but put a man six feet in a hole."  Dogs are inherently loyal, gentle, and loving creatures.  Mankind makes them into something else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Blue Devil said:

 

So your argument is intent?

 

1. Seat Belts - are intended to prevent human injury/death. Why is it Against the Law Not to use them?

 

2. Vicious Dogs - are intended to inflict human injury/death, and they also possess a will of their own in that regard, requiring physical restraint to prevent it. Why can anybody have one?

 

3. Handguns and "Assault Weapons" - are intended to both inflict and prevent human injury/death, now, and at the time of this Nation's Founding. They were, and still are today, purpose built tools for Liberty and Security. The Founders knew this, as the Second Amendment to the Constitution directly cites a Militia, or ad-hoc civilian security, as to why both the ownership and carrying of those Handguns and "Assault Weapons"..."Shall Not Be Infringed." So why are they being infringed, contra to the highest laws of the United States, today?

 

The founders?  Really?  The slave owning founders?  They also knew that one human being owning another was an abomination and didn't care about that either.  AFAIC that's plenty reason enough for infringement of some of their guidelines. 

 

I learned a long time ago that if people like you don't care about this country's remarkably despicable democratized gun carnage, regardless of things like a classroom of slaughtered six year olds, nobody's going to make you.  People like, see below...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/21/2020 at 6:26 PM, IkeBana said:

1.  Seat belts - wear one or don't.  I don't much care.  But if you end up in the hospital because you werent wearing one, your health insurance shouldn't pay the bill.  To some degree we all pay for some of everybody else's health insurance.  Particularly those of us who are not using the health insurance all that often.

Well, it's your car insurance that will pay the bill and I think that should depend on your agreement with your car insurance company.  If you want coverage for not wearing a seat belt and want to pay extra, then go for it. 

On 4/21/2020 at 6:26 PM, IkeBana said:

 

2.  Vicious dogs - if your vicious dog injures or kills somebody due to your negligence, you should be going to prison.  How long?  Depends on how flagrant the negligence.

Go to prison just because someone was negligent in keeping a dog penned up?  Do you want to send people who can't pay their debts to prison also?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Skans said:

 

Go to prison just because someone was negligent in keeping a dog penned up? 

 

No.  Go to prison because their negligence caused a death or serious injury.  Try to have a smidgen of integrity will ya?

 

People go to prison for negligent acts all the time...as they should.  A parent who doesn't keep their Glock locked up and who's 6 year old kills another six year old, should be going to prison.  A parent who doesn't keep their dogfighting trained pitbull locked up and it kills a neighbor's six year old should be going to prison.

 

PS - a sitting President who attempts to shut down the USPS during a pandemic to rob the people of their right to vote by mail should be going to prison.  But it doesn't appear that intent matters all that much to you people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...