Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire It is not just cops

Matthias,

I can't resist posting again. I guess whatever this thread has proved, it has proved I don't know when to quit.

Let me understand you correctly, you are seriously posting that the reason for having restrictive drug laws is so that children will not use them? Think about that for a minute and ask if you really mean that. When on the face of God's green earth in the course of human history has a law or the words of a parent ever kept a child or teenager from doing something they wanted to do? In many cases kids are drawn to things simply because they are forbidden. You know this, yet you propose to limit someones freedom because of what might happen to the children.

Well, Matthias, you know and I know that there are more alcoholics out there than there are drug addicts. You and I know that there are children out there who will become alcoholics after the first beer. Their addiction will result in deaths, broken homes, and all kinds of mischief, yet I don't see you advocating a return to Prohibition. My guess is that you like to have a beer or two yourself. Therefore, it is better to regulate your neighbor who likes a little cocaine every now and then. Remember you advocate a total ban, not age limits or any other restrictions, a total ban because your evil cocaine using neighbor might hook some children in the neighborhood on the drug. I personally don't drink, smoke, or use drugs. I think they are all bad and I would personally not like my children to be exposed to them. I should be in favor of banning them all, and were to use your logic, I would be. However, I feel that whatever someone does to themselves or in the privacy of their home is none of my business. My children, like anyone else, will have to take their chances. Some will make good decisions and some will make bad decisions.

Your argument is flawed because it can be used to support the banning of anything that is potentially harmful. I am not saying that is your position, I am just saying that the same logic can be used to ban almost anything. If someone takes your position using your logic, then he really can't object to someone else using the same logic for banning something else. It is all a matter of degree, not a matter of philosophy, since you readily assert that banning some things is good and should be done to protect others from themselves.

When someone says some restrictive action is for the children, hold on to your hat. Like many in America today you hold human life above all else when you wish to regulate certain behavior on the chance that it might be harmful to some. I, on the other hand, know with certainty that there are more important things than human life and that liberty is one of them. Freedom has ever been sacrificed in the name of security and human life.

Ohhh, Haggis - if you are going to quote the Bible, you should first at least understand it. This is exactly what I have spoken of before in this thread. "Before the law, there was no sin" does not mean the law caused sin. If it did, then Jesus would be saying, in effect, that God caused sin. If you believe this to be the case, then the whole Bible will be senseless to you, and there is no point in quoting it. The truth is exactly the opposite. The law was brought BECAUSE of the sin. Even the Ten Commandments themselves were a response to the EXISTING sin.

The big picture that you are missing is that - generally speaking - laws do not cause criminals - CRIMINALS CAUSE LAWS. Do not play word games with me and claim that crime is defined by law. Just as there is such a thing as "natural law". there is also "natural crime". If it were not so, then it would be moral for me to do whatever comes to mind at any given instant. A lack of written code does not eliminate or excuse crime in any moral sense. It is the criminal actions of man that has caused the need for law. The fact that we have allowed laws to get too immense and complicated does not change this reality.

-FreeMe

Haggis: At least Joe makes some sense. What you post just reeks of pure BS.
I guess the way to get rid of high murder statistics is to decriminalize murder.

Joe, it is indeed a matter of degree - just as you say.



I can tell you that alcohol and cocaine differ by degree. They are as different as apples and oranges. One can use alcohol responsibley and NOT become intoxicated. The whole POINT of using cocaine is to be intoxicated. And it is virtually impossible to do so without being intoxicated.



Pot has been used in these kinds of discussions as well. Not only is pot virtually always intoxicating (show me someone who smokes it and does not get intoxicated - those who *think* they are not intoxicated do not count), but very often the user believes he is more competent under the influence of pot. Not only that, but the mind disabling effects of pot in regular users is somewhat constant and lasting even when they are not ingesting it (up to three months after use has stopped).



Meth cannot even begin to be rationally compared to alcohol. I know some meth addicts, and even THEY will tell you this. It is vastly more dangerous and has more devastating permanent affects.



I could go on and on...



Then there's the issue of certain drugs that are ingested unknowingly, because someone ELSE put them in food, drinks, etc. At least you KNOW when you are or may be drinking alcohol.



And BTW, Joe - thanks for this quote "...you know and I know that there are more alcoholics out there than there are drug addicts." This FACT is so commonly ignored by those who would legalize drugs - EVEN WHILE THEY CLAIM THAT LEGALIZATION WOULD REDUCE THE NUMBER OF ADDICTS! You're not gonna go THERE, are you?



-FreeMe



edited for typo

How fortunate I and others are to have people like you and Mathias around who know and completely understand everything from the history of the world, to modern cultural psychology, to theology with such clarity that you can explain it simply by saying that anything that is in opposes to your perspective is BS <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />.

Joe...hey, at least we got something in common. I too cannot resist posting on this topic time after time. Hey, we both feel passionately about the issue, that's good. Only difference is, I'm right! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Quote : "Let me understand you correctly, you are seriously posting that the reason for having restrictive drug laws is so that children will not use them?"

I was merely using what you tossed at me in an earlier post. Here's the quote:

"I beleive that it is better that every kid in the neighborhood become a cocaine addict, etc.... than to infringe on one person's rights unnecessarily."

You are absolutely right in that I cannot keep my son from doing what he wants to do. If he wants to get to the kitchen knives, he will. However, I will not make things easier for him by leaving them laying around easily accessible. Plus, they are in a drawer he knows not to touch. Therefore, in order to get to the forbidden knife, he is trespassing in forbidden territory. Double barrier, so to speak. (I hope I am not confusing you with Parent talk). It would be irresponsible of me to give him easy access to things that could hurt him, especially since he does not know better himself.

Why do we not allow children to purchase firearms, but allow adults to do the same? Because it is a graded approach.

Like I stated earlier, it doesn't take a lot of brains to know most illegal drugs are pretty bad for you. With alcohol, there is a lot of "in-between" between non-drinkers and alcoholics. With most illegal drugs, that space is much more narrow. I know because I've been there. The "occasional" user of cocaine and heroine is extremely rare.
So, the extremely negative effects of those drugs are well known. Addicts are a burden on our society.
Additionally, our laws do not only exist to criminalize people. They are there to establish a moral framework within which our society functions.
Our society, with its drug laws, says that the trade and usage of those drugs are not okay. What good could come of it?
Society enacts these laws to protect itself from the negative effects of the drugs. Unproductive members of society, drug crime, etc. Even if drugs were legal, addicts would commit crime to finance their habit. Prevention is not the only function a law has. It should also establish a reasonable punishment for what society feels is unacceptable behavior.
If this potential for punishment is gone (through legalization) you will (for sure) have more people acting on their desires, thus creating problems for society.
You cannot apply the same logic to guns.

Haggis...take a good look at what you posted. You were saying that without laws there is no crime. And then you expect to be taken seriously. Do you see any flaws in your logic, or do I really need to go into it?
Like I said, maybe the way to reduce the high murder statistics in this country would be to decriminalize murder. This is your logic applied to the real world.

I am I hearing that my B.A. in History and French has taught me nothing? I graduated Magna Cum Laude with a 3.89 grade point average on a 4 point scale. I was inducted into five Honor Societies including Phi Kappa Phi. I was chosen History Student of the Year two years in a row, but I�m being told that I know nothing of history.

Apparently my Master�s in History with heavy emphasis on psychology, anthropology, government, and sociology had little impact on my knowledge of those subjects; though I graduated 4.0 on a 4 point scale.

I was raised in a Pentecostal home with my Great-Grandfather, Great-Grandmother, my Grandfather, and my Mother all preachers; my Mother was an evangelist for 50 years before being killed by a truck driver asleep at the wheel. Yet to hear it I know nothing of the Bible or scripture.

Apparently everything that I have learned in school, college, graduate study, and a lifetime of scriptural related activities, as well as personal experiences have taught me nothing but BS.

That being the case, I will abandon the field to those two fountains of perfect knowledge and understanding whose logical conclusions have so stunned and amazed us.

Alright, Enlightened One. Please explain to my lowly self how you have no crime without laws? Sigh...did you really get rid of the criminal action, or did you just quit calling it criminal?
Please, Haggis, reason with me here.
Please explain to me how there is no crime without law.

Who told you that you know nothing of History?
I think Joe made a post about Hitler being elected into power, which I felt called to correct. But that was Joe, not you.

One more, very general thing here: Education does not equal wisdom. The bible is very clear on this.

"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline."

Proverbs 1:7

And Matthias, I corrected your correction about Hitler.

Joe...did you see my correction to the correction to the correction? ( <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />)

Here, I'll quote myself:
"Um, no. Hitler never had plural majority. Check your facts.

Here's some history:

Myth: Democracy elected Hitler to power.

Fact: Hitler used backroom deals, not votes, to come to power.



Summary

Hitler never had more than 37 percent of the popular vote in the honest elections that occurred before he became Chancellor. And the opposition among the 63 percent against him was generally quite strong. Hitler therefore would have never seen the light of day had the German Republic been truly democratic. Unfortunately, its otherwise sound constitution contained a few fatal flaws. The German leaders also had a weak devotion to democracy, and some were actively plotting to overthrow it. Hitler furthermore enjoyed an almost unbroken string of luck in coming to power. He benefited greatly from the Great Depression, the half-senility of the president, the incompetence of his opposition, and the appearance of an unnecessary backroom deal just as the Nazis were starting to lose popular appeal and votes. "

There was a lot more detail to the post, but this is the summary. If you'd like to know more, just go back and read the whole thing.

Again, Hitler was not elected to the power he had.

This just goes to show that we can argue about anything. Hitler was lawfully elected according to the rules of the German democracy at that time. Thirty-seven percent was enough to give the Nazis a plurality in the Reichstag and have Hitler appointed Chancellor by Hindenburg. It matters not what he did later, he was initially elected.

The fact that Hitler only had 37 percent means little and really 37 percent is only 6 percent different than 43 percent. Forty-three percent being, of course, the amount of the popular vote received by Bill Clinton in 1992. Both are far short of a majority, yet, enough to get both Hitler and Bill Clinton elected in their respective systems. Wow, yet another way the modern American "republic" is beginning to resemble Nazi Germany. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Joe....

Quote:

"Forty-three percent being, of course, the amount of the popular vote received by Bill Clinton in 1992."

You should know that nobody gives a rat's ass about popular vote in this country, it being a representative republic, and not a democracy and all. Important difference, as the last elections showed once again.

Yes, we can argue.... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />
I maintain that Hitler was not elected into the position that he later took. He sweet-talked Hindenburg into giving him the powers of Chancellor. Before that, the position in that extent did not exist. People did not vote for that. Hitler cheated his way into that position. There is a very important difference there. Barely one third of Germans voted for him.
So, Chancellor Hitler was not elected. I will give you this: His party was elected to represent 37% of germans. This partie's front man was hitler. BUT....Chancellor Hitler was NOT elected.
After all, a somewhat close analogy would be Al Gore seizing the presidency and then claiming he was elected. After all, he won the popular vote, and the Democrats represent about half of the US population! Which is far more than Hitler could claim. Hitler simply did not win the Chancellorship, he seized it. Which has nothing democratic about it.
But, then again, one third of Germans DID vote for him.
OTOH, he was acting out a position nobody elected him for.
I could argue with myself for hours and hours.... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

How do you have no crime with no laws? Simple, just repeal every law.

Of course the same low lifes will be commiting the same acts, but it will no longer be illegal.

I don't have the education to write these high sounding essays, but I have enough sense to recognize that as being stupid no matter how many guys with masters degrees dreamed it up

Those were kinda my thoughts...but then again, I don't have three advanced degrees in Sociology either.

Just ask Haggis, he can explain it all away. If he ever does lower himself to my level and explains it to me, that is.

Well, gosh. If we have to present acreditted credentials for this discussion, then I guess I'm out.

I guess I wasted all that time studying government, history, and human psychology on my own time since graduating high school (25 years ago), if I can't produce a sheepskin to validate it. I woulda loved to attend, but I had to pay bills instead - woe is me. It's a real shame too - since that means I also missed out on the official indoctrination that sheepskin requires. Dang.

And it appears that I am twice cursed, because there were no preachers or evangelists in my family. Just Bible studying and believing Christians.

I guess I had to learn everything the hard way. (whimper)



Didn't all that schoolin' teach you how to debate without pulling rank?

-FreeMe

Seems to me like you have more common sense to show for it.


Once again, Haggis: Please show me the logic in your argument that no laws produce less crime (or no crime, whatever)