Quote: Originally Posted by karrie
That fact is debatable from both sides. Pro-lifers who'd like to see abortion made murder, people who'd like to see homosexuals jailed for being who they are... the list of laws that have been on the books, or are being pushed onto the books now, to attempt to enforce 'like mindedness', are plentiful. We just tend to not see them as such when they mesh with our views, ie, our view of 'good' behaviour.
You are trying to draw a link between enforcing "your" morality on others with what are societal norms, or what is acceptable by society at large. Again, there is a difference; what the majority of society finds as the boundary of what is acceptable is where you will also find restrictive laws in a free society. Rather than get into a lot of the nuts and bolts of it, I'll just say that the hard lobbying by special interest groups have seen many of these laws repealed, primarily because society at large doesn't have the stamina or reason to fight at the other end if it doesn't really concern them. I don't want to go into where this has gone since because it is irrelelvent to this topic, and I would take up too much of my time.
There is also a difference betweent wanting to see a law in place, and actually making it so. Your missive dealt with previous laws that were enacted many years ago by a majority that have since been repealed by a minority, (I'm not saying whether that is right or wrong, but only stating fact). You dismissed my post regarding correcting behaviour over correcting bad bahaviour. Society at large, or the majority, normally dictates or suggests what is bad behaviour, not a vocal minority. To the point, I too believed laws were to correct behaviour, but it was an older, smarter, and much wiser man than myself who is an award winning author and columnist, George Jonas, who shone the light in my eyes. I can't remember the exact quotes, but it was Wendy Cukier, (a pawn of Alan Rock) who said these firearms laws were intended to correct or control the behaviour of firearms owners. Firearms owners by and large did not exhibit bad behaviour before and there was really no political will to make any change except at the behest of the "gun grabbers". Laws were already on the books to deal with the criminals. As Gearoge Jonas pointed out, the law is designed to correct bad behaviour, what Wendy Cukier want's is a law to correct behaviour, and a vocal minority are far too eager to oblige. And that is what we now have to live with.
Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_one
Can you give an example of a bad law which reinforces your point?
I am a liberal lefty by the standards of most right wing neoconservatives. I think people should be free to do whatever they like as long as it doesn't impose on someone else. You want to own a gun... go ahead, I don't have a problem with it, until you stick your gun in my face (or someone else) without just cause. You want to smoke dope, go ahead, I don't have a problem with that until you get behind the wheel of a car... and so on. I don't want to tell other people what they can and can't do unless it affects someone else or is a safety issue.
I noticed that many right wing neoconservatives feel they are the fashion police and have a right to dictate their fashion sense on others and control what other people can wear in public (ie. burka or hijab). You can believe what you like about others, but I against restricting clothing choices unless its a safety issue. I am against wearing a burka while swimming or driving a motorcycle for example.
Haven't we clashed once before? Or are you a doppelganger of that person, I might be thinking of someone else.
Anyway, just from this post you sound like a classical liberal, certainly not a leftwingnut. Actually more like me. The problem is with labels; neocon, right wing, religious right; these are all labels that the left give to other left wing groups that don't follow their ideology, (the real right wing don't need labels because they believe in personal freedom, now called libertarians if you will). Stalin labelled the NAZI's right wing only to distance his brand of tyranny from Hitler's, but they were both tyrannies. They were both totalitarian ologarchies, both far left, both controlling, just that one was more of an equal opportunity killer than the other. Conservatives aren't necessarily freedom lovers, the names of parties and idologies change with the zeitgeist. Canada's Liberals started out contesting Sir John A's Conservatives as the Reform Party. They were actually liberals, for real. The Liberal Party ended up being a party that detested personal freedom and embraced collectivism, go figure, which is why former Liberals call themselves classical liberals.
You can't judge a person, government, policy, or ideolgy by name. You can only judge by intent and actions. Never mind by labels.
Quote: Originally Posted by Ocean Breeze
When a child is killed this way......why does the poltical affiliation matter?? A human life, that has not had a chance to grow into adulthood and its full potential is snuffed out when a gun is carelessly left for something like this to happen.
This is a HUMAN problem& tragedy.. Not a lib, con, communist , or whatever....
Political offiliation doesn't matter. I was an accident. But having had to deal with accidents and their causes there are always lessons to be learned. Sometimes policies, procedures, and laws actually are part the cause. It may have been left carelessly, or where it was rather than violate a different law. I don't know, If you have too many laws to obey sometimes common sense takes a back seat, I've seen it happen.
Last edited by bobnoorduyn; Mar 19th, 2012 at 08:25 PM..