NationStates Jolt Archive

As always, when there is some perceived threat, we are forced to question, how much freedom are we willing to lose in order to ensure our security? Depending on the general feeling, laws are passed or not, curtailing certain freedoms in order to provide a sense of security.

So.

How much freedom are you willing to give up in order to 'feel' secure? Be specific if possible....think of your freedom of speech, of association, of movement, of political affiliation, of action etc. What freedoms would you willingly do away with in order to be safe? (These can include freedoms already curtailed by laws, such as the 'freedom' to go around killing folks:))

well in the UK there isn't as much hysteria over terrorist threats (as there appears to be in the US), so i'm pretty relaxed about the whole issue... or at least security isn't as much of an issue for me. hence i wouldn't willingly do away with that much of my freedom - my feedom of speech being what i probably hold dearest.
to be specific, i think extensive checks at customs are ok; and i think the idea of ID cards is a good one. censorship of the media is bad.

i'm not sure if that's quite what you were looking for (or specific enough), Sinuhue, but i have a hangover and can't think anymore :D

i'm not sure if that's quite what you were looking for (or specific enough), Sinuhue, but i have a hangover and can't think anymore :D
Understood:). I have been told that the UK has the most closed circuit cameras and facial recognition software of any country in the world. Do you think that huge expense is necessary, or desireable? Does it increase security? Someone once said that in order to catch a criminal this way, it would be necessary to misidentify 9,999 people...but this person could've been talking out their arse. Thoughts?

How much freedom are you willing to give up in order to 'feel' secure?

Non, but that is because I am a paranoid commie-pinko anarchist who wouldn't trust anyone else to protect him.

Understood:). I have been told that the UK has the most closed circuit cameras and facial recognition software of any country in the world.

Isn't this facial recognition software usually called PC Barry from Stockport?

Do you think that huge expense is necessary, or desireable? Does it increase security? Someone once said that in order to catch a criminal this way, it would be necessary to misidentify 9,999 people...but this person could've been talking out their arse. Thoughts?

The security cameras generally just move crime away from the main drag where the cameras tend to be located.

Non, but that is because I am a paranoid commie-pinko anarchist who wouldn't trust anyone else to protect him.
Sounds like you've internalised the names others have given you:).

And me too...I'll accept my freedoms being curtailed only in the sense that my actions should not actively harm someone else. Other than that, (and in some specific cases where I differ, but can't think of now), I believe the more freedom, the better. HOWEVER, I do not equate my personal freedom with the 'freedom' to consume or the 'freedom' of the market. I believe the market should be heavily regulated to ensure ethical and environmental standards. I don't consider this to be a curtailing of my freedom.

(bash away, folks!)

Isn't this facial recognition software usually called PC Barry from Stockport?
Dunno.

The security cameras generally just move crime away from the main drag where the cameras tend to be located.And if you're at a football match, do you really want to be arrested using this technology for all those unpaid parking tickets? I mean...IN THE MIDDLE OF THE MATCH!!!!!! :D

My stance is not a popular one, but it's one that I honestly feel is necessary for the government to consider safety of the nation (national security) to be its primary concern. That said, I would not think it good to impliment unnecessary or absurd infringements one rights using national security as a cover.

Basically, if we are harmed, killed, or overtaken by another nation, what good were the rights we had? They do no good.

I know some will argue, "Without those rights, what good is safety?" They have a valid dispute. It all comes down to what is important. This is my problem with that, though. If the government keeps all freedoms, dispite security lackings as a result, what happens for your children and grandchildren when this same government that gave you all these rights is overtaken by a government that is overly oppressive, such as one that is ruled by a dictator that is known to kill his own people? Then, they have neither rights nor safety.

This is the only reason I voted for W. I feel safe with him as a president. I don't feel the need to spread democracy. I am not of the persuasion that we should free all the oppressed people. I do want to be safe. I don't want to wait until attacked everytime something is done, even if it turns out that there was nothing of which to be afraid (WMDs, etc.).

Understood:). I have been told that the UK has the most closed circuit cameras and facial recognition software of any country in the world. Do you think that huge expense is necessary, or desireable? Does it increase security? Someone once said that in order to catch a criminal this way, it would be necessary to misidentify 9,999 people...but this person could've been talking out their arse. Thoughts?
hmm... i don't mind surveillance in the same way i don't mind ID cards. its non-intrusive to my daily life and, to be frank, as long as you haven't done anything illegal, you have nothing to worry about. its that simple. of course there need to be checks and systems to ensure that it stays that way - that it doesn't develop into a Big Brother 1984 style tyranny, but i'm not that worried about that happening (not as paranoid as some seem to be)

Sounds like you've internalised the names others have given you:).

:D Well if there is one thing I have learned from NS it is we should all use the same terms.

Dunno.

Sorry, bad attempt at humour.

I get free cable and when I was completely skint I got addicted to those programs with names that make Britain sound like a War Zone (eg. Street Wars on Sky One).

And if you're at a football match, do you really want to be arrested using this technology for all those unpaid parking tickets? I mean...IN THE MIDDLE OF THE MATCH!!!!!! :D

Well the only football matches I have been to have been Stalybridge matches. Who don't have the money for these fancy scmancy technologies ;)

But I get your point :D

hmm... i don't mind surveillance in the same way i don't mind ID cards. its non-intrusive to my daily life and, to be frank, as long as you haven't done anything illegal, you have nothing to worry about. its that simple.

*shifty eyes*

I have to say they don't bother me too much. Provided it stays on public land

That whole idea of "you'll be safe as long as you don't do anything wrong" bothers me a bit, because often laws are changed in times of crisis to include a wide range of 'wrong' activities. For example, pre 911, the Ontario anti-Poverty group was just an activist group. Since 911 they are now considered a semi-terrorist organisation because they got a bit rowdy at a protest years back. Thank goodness I wasn't on their rolls as a contributer!

That whole idea of "you'll be safe as long as you don't do anything wrong" bothers me a bit, because often laws are changed in times of crisis to include a wide range of 'wrong' activities. For example, pre 911, the Ontario anti-Poverty group was just an activist group. Since 911 they are now considered a semi-terrorist organisation because they got a bit rowdy at a protest years back. Thank goodness I wasn't on their rolls as a contributer!
that is very true, but a risk that i think is acceptable.

that is very true, but a risk that i think is acceptable.
Do you really...and naming this anti-poverty group as a terrorist organisation, which makes contributing to them illegal...that keeps us safe how? They might incite all the bums to riot! ARGHHH!!!!

I support the Liberty to secure my own Security. That is my stance.

I support the Liberty to secure my own Security. That is my stance.
Is that a NRA quote? :D

I agree with you completely, Sinuhue, on the nature of what is "wrong;" in times of crisis, the term "anything wrong" becomes synonymous with "anything suspicious" and in some case with "anything that makes me uncomfortable." In the States, under the a set of new laws passed since 9/11, a man who'd had one too many miniature vodka bottles got loud with one of the flight attendants; he's now labelled a "domestic terrorist" under current legislation because some people feel it's better to cover too many bases, I suppose, than to let something slip by them.

A bit more personal example:

I wear a black trenchcoat to school because it's a good "layer" of clothing (not too heavy but it's there when i get cold) not too mention I look damn cool in it :) ; I've done so for the last year and a half, since I recieved it as a gift. There was a school shooting not too long ago, and about a month later, it's a chilly morning, I decide I'm going to wear my coat. Immediately upon entering the building, I'm "escorted" (a slightly less indignant way of saying manhandled) into the Dean's office and interrogated, (verbally) poked and prodded, and threatened with suspension, all because they were shaken up about this tragedy, which vaguely reminded them of a similar one nearly a decade ago in which the culprits wore black trenchcoats. I couldn't form any quick comeback along the lines of "I'll press charges if you try to suspend me for this" becuase it's an independent school which generally means they can make up their own rules and enforce them as they please, within reason.

Punished for no reason other than what I was wearing made them uncomfortable.

Do you really...and naming this anti-poverty group as a terrorist organisation, which makes contributing to them illegal...that keeps us safe how? They might incite all the bums to riot! ARGHHH!!!!
gah i wasn't talking about that particular example. that is just one instance where the system fails. obviously that anti-poverty group is not a terrorist organisation and labelling it as such is stupid - in the UK i'm sure there would be public outcry if that happened here.
i meant that the risk of that sort of thing happening is acceptable, largely because i don't think the risk is that great (for the UK)

Making people uncomfortable should never be a crime (unless it would actually result in harm:)). Which is why I support free speech, even from racists, which makes me EXTREMELY uncomfortable. As long as no one forces me to sit an listen to it, I'm fine.

But being detained at the US border (as my good friend was), and being found to be a member of this anti-poverty group, being banned from entering the US for 3 years, no appeals, AND having her car seized (no appeals) is not my idea of security.

gah i wasn't talking about that particular example. that is just one instance where the system fails. obviously that anti-poverty group is not a terrorist organisation and labelling it as such is stupid - in the UK i'm sure there would be public outcry if that happened here.
i meant that the risk of that sort of thing happening is acceptable, largely because i don't think the risk is that great (for the UK)
You mean the risk of a mistake like labelling this group a terrorist organisation? Ok..gotcha.

You mean the risk of a mistake like labelling this group a terrorist organisation? Ok..gotcha.
From the vague information you gave this group being declared terrorist stinks of political opportunism rather the a simple mistake.

But maybe I am being overly cynical.

gah i wasn't talking about that particular example. that is just one instance where the system fails. obviously that anti-poverty group is not a terrorist organisation and labelling it as such is stupid - in the UK i'm sure there would be public outcry if that happened here.
i meant that the risk of that sort of thing happening is acceptable, largely because i don't think the risk is that great (for the UK)

That's the difference though.

I've noticed that many of the stories I've read about the way laws are used in the United States is that they are followed to the letter, even in relatively high profile cases. Here in the UK I think more people generally use their nouse and say, well ok, this law wasn't supposed to make this behaviour illegal, it was just poorly worded.

I don't know if the stories I've read are what you'd call "reliable" probably not since most of them are linked to on fark, but I doubt all of them can be wrong.

As to the original poster, I'm again with pure metal, I'd consider this country relatively safe when it comes to anti-terrorism laws. Great Britain's been living with terrorism for alot longer than the US has, and as a result we don't really have much adjusting to do in a post 9-11 world. If anything the many ways in which the government enforces laws that we do have I consider to be a bit draconian.

Is that a NRA quote? :D
What's wrong, don't you love freedom too?

I dont see why you coudln't have them both.

but people might consider the whole taking pictures and face recongnition as loosing their freedom and invasion of privacy. But I personally dont.

There is no right that's not worth giving up to ensure our security!

What we need is a strong autocratic leader, with the power to impliment new laws for our best intrests without the handicap of the democratic process. We need constant survailence and tracking of everyone, everywhere to make sure there is no cime. We need secrete police to catch covert terrorists who would overhrow the regiume. We need censorship of any media that undermines the government and thus helps terrorists.

Finally we need to go to war with all the oppressive dictatorships in the Middle East (despite the fact most of them, such as Iraq) oppose terrosist groups (such as Al Quida).

I was thinking more about economic liberty vs. economic security. We are rapidly headed down the road to total dependance on the government for everything. I would prefer the opportunity to opt out of government assistance and be responsible for myself.

There is no right that's not worth giving up to ensure our security!

What we need is a strong autocratic leader, with the power to impliment new laws for our best intrests without the handicap of the democratic process. We need constant survailence and tracking of everyone, everywhere to make sure there is no cime. We need secrete police to catch covert terrorists who would overhrow the regiume. We need censorship of any media that undermines the government and thus helps terrorists.

Finally we need to go to war with all the oppressive dictatorships in the Middle East (despite the fact most of them, such as Iraq) oppose terrosist groups (such as Al Quida).


I can only hope you're sarcastically playing the devil's advocate, as I haven't heard such an obviously bad idea in a while. :)

Is that a NRA quote? :D

Not to the best of my knowledge. I'm pretty sure that it's originally mine.

Could be wrong...

From the vague information you gave this group being declared terrorist stinks of political opportunism rather the a simple mistake.

But maybe I am being overly cynical.
Na...I think the application of many of these anti-terrorism laws are political opportunism. Just as it was when Trudeau declared the War Measures Act and detained all sorts of folks that weren't really criminal...just pesky:). That doesn't mean I think the intent of these laws was to do this...just that certain people in governments around the world are using them this way.

What's wrong, don't you love freedom too?
Kehehehheee...sorry, I don't equate freedom with the ability to carry a firearm. Though I'd be pissed if I couldn't have my hunting rifle, I could care less about not having a handgun. And it has nothing to do with protection, and all about food. MMMMMMMooooossssseeeee....

That's the difference though.

I've noticed that many of the stories I've read about the way laws are used in the United States is that they are followed to the letter, even in relatively high profile cases. Here in the UK I think more people generally use their nouse and say, well ok, this law wasn't supposed to make this behaviour illegal, it was just poorly worded.

I don't know if the stories I've read are what you'd call "reliable" probably not since most of them are linked to on fark, but I doubt all of them can be wrong.

As to the original poster, I'm again with pure metal, I'd consider this country relatively safe when it comes to anti-terrorism laws. Great Britain's been living with terrorism for alot longer than the US has, and as a result we don't really have much adjusting to do in a post 9-11 world. If anything the many ways in which the government enforces laws that we do have I consider to be a bit draconian.
agreed

I was thinking more about economic liberty vs. economic security. We are rapidly headed down the road to total dependance on the government for everything. I would prefer the opportunity to opt out of government assistance and be responsible for myself.
That's fine...I think your point is a good one to discuss too. I for one, understand the desire to be responsible for oneself, especially since so many of our tax dollars are misspent. However, overall, I'd prefer to help others to just helping myself, and I think that I'd prefer that the majority have economic securty. Doesn't mean I won't sit down and not question how taxes are spent though...

personally, i value freedom over security.

security _can not_ be guaranteed. theres always a random chance skylab or some crap could fall on your head.

also, to a certain extent, i believe security (at least on a personal level) is partially the responsibility of the individual.

im not suggesting we all start walking around with bandoleirs and rpgs and all, (i got mixed feelings on gun control, havnt quite sorted out where i stand on it)

but that people should be aware of their surroundings, have some idea of how to defend themselves(be it armed, unarmed, damn fast runner, whatever) and most importantly, be allowed to use it, in _defense_ of themselves or another person- which seems to be a problem in many cases, and the government does not want people to defend themselves(take a look at how martial-artists fair in self-defense cases, or anyone using a weapon for self-defense without some powerful legal help)

meh, i also tend to be a bit dismissive of terrorism. not to offend anyone directly/indirectly affected by the 9-11 thing, but the whole point of terrorism is to scare people. its not effective in terms of numbers of people killed/damage caused, but merely because it scares the hell out of people.

they(whoever they are) dont need to launch anymore terrorist attacks, we are practically wetting ourselves over the last one. people are still afraid to fly, others want to bomb the crap out of every nation in the mideast/southeast asia. (which will only gaurantee more terrorist attacks)

i dont think the us is in iminent danger of invasion, and even so, its amazing how much harder people will fight to defend their actual homeland.

bah, enough ranting, i gotta get to class.

That's fine...I think your point is a good one to discuss too. I for one, understand the desire to be responsible for oneself, especially since so many of our tax dollars are misspent. However, overall, I'd prefer to help others to just helping myself, and I think that I'd prefer that the majority have economic securty. Doesn't mean I won't sit down and not question how taxes are spent though...
There's a line between helping others and creating government dependency. I strongly oppose the idea that a government can seize my property and then decide who can make better use of it. I'm not convinced that the goverment has any business in the "helping" part, at all. I'm not saying "screw the poor", only that the government has yet to demonstrate it can really help them, not just create more people totally dependent on government.

My initial post was aimed more at our screwed up retirement entitlement, jokingly referred to as Social Security. Here is a program that takes fifteen percent of everyone's income. The security is supposed to be a guaranteed benefit at the end of one's working years.

Since the inception of this masterpiece, the benefits have been scaled back by increasing the age that full benefits can be received. So, no guarantee there. What about the benefits? I don't see any iron-clad guarantees there, either. When we run out of wage-earners to support the retired population, what will we do? Raise taxes or cut benefits come to mind.

Health care is another area that government is encroaching on our economic liberty. Just the mandates on private health insurance are unreasonable; I'd hate to see what happens when the government finally starts rationing all our medical care. For instance, I should be able to buy a health insurance policy that doesn't have substance abuse treatment included. Or child birth coverage. I can't. The government won't let the company offer those sorts of exclusions. My only choice is to cover dependants and how many.

Enough ranting. These are just a few of the areas where the government is smothering our economic liberty in favor of the security of a few.

There's a line between helping others and creating government dependency.
Yes, there is, but I'm in favour of a mixed economy that leans slightly more to the left than the Canadian government does...but not left enough to be communist. I think where we are is working fairly well...there are few 'dependent' on the government.

I strongly oppose the idea that a government can seize my property and then decide who can make better use of it.
Sorry, but I find that a bit ironic, being Native:). I agree with you though...to a certain extent. If rich land barons own half the country, and the country needs that land to be producing food and providing space for its populace, then by all means, expropriate. I'm for compensation however, at a fair market price.

I'm not convinced that the goverment has any business in the "helping" part, at all. I'm not saying "screw the poor", only that the government has yet to demonstrate it can really help them, not just create more people totally dependent on government.
Well, what do you mean by dependency on the government? Canada tends to be a bit more socialist than the US, and there aren't really all that many cases of government dependency. Employment Insurance is limited and regulated, disability and life and really ANY other public insurance is also limited and regulated. It takes hard work to sucker the system to keep on the teat in perpetuity (and hey, don't we like to reward hard work:)). The idea of the welfare bum is a highly inflated notion. So is thinking that a completely unregulated market will somehow provide for the poor out of self-interest.

My initial post was aimed more at our screwed up retirement entitlement, jokingly referred to as Social Security. Here is a program that takes fifteen percent of everyone's income. The security is supposed to be a guaranteed benefit at the end of one's working years.

Since the inception of this masterpiece, the benefits have been scaled back by increasing the age that full benefits can be received. So, no guarantee there. What about the benefits? I don't see any iron-clad guarantees there, either. When we run out of wage-earners to support the retired population, what will we do? Raise taxes or cut benefits come to mind.
Yup, same thing is going on in Canada with our CPP. Utter and complete bullshit in my mind...but a good influx of immigrants could help us deal with all these retiring baby boomers...that or euthanasia...heheheheheheeee....

That there is inefficiency and misuse and nepotism and just plain idiots in government, I will not argue. I'd like more people to get off their asses and do something about it...but when they do they get labeled terrorist groups:).

Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!


ive had enough

im way more likely to die by slipping in the shower or eletrocuting myself with the microwave than i am to die from terrorism or having the country invaded by mexican day laborers.

yet they want to follow us from cradle to grave tracking everything from our library habits to our fraternal associations.

TO WHAT END? will they find some alqaida sleeper-cell by following people who take "terrorism for dummies" out of the library?

will our borders get so tight that lettuce costs $10/head because only americans can work in the fields?

im sick of this bullshit pretending that they can make us safe. they cant. all this surveillance and email monitoring is expensive window dressing.

this country was founded on liberty and we need to get back to it!

Okay. So this is basically stating Privacy vrs Social Welfare.
Privacy is freedom
Social welfare is security.

First:
Privacy is the pre requisite to democracy. Without democracy, we turn into a communist, or dictatorship state. Since America is advocating democracy, we can say America is a democracy. Therefore, if we take away privacy, we take away democracy, thus bring us down. Also, if we took away privacy, many people would either self censor themselves, or revolt.

Self censorship comes in hand, when privacy is taken away. Therefore, if we take away privacy, people will become nervous. Bad things happen. New ideas such as Stem Cell research would never be proposed, if there is a religious government in power.

Revolution may occur, due to the fact that people will feel as if their rights are being inflicted upon. This is agreed upon by John Locke, where he talks about natural rights.

Second.
In order to have social welfare, or this, "security," you must take away privacy. Without privacy, you may be able to catch things before they happen. However, as seen in Orwell's novel, 1984(I might be wrong on the title), the government becomes too opressive. People could be thrown in jail, just for the statement, "I hate the government." This will happen, as seen through the French Revolution, where if anybody spoke against the government, the person would be thrown away into custody, and ultimatly, to death.

This enforces the first contention, because I stated in order to acheive pure Social Welfare, you must take away privacy. Logically, if you want to stop something, you have to think about it before hand. Therefore, you can catch a criminal planning an attack before he/she commits it.

Kehehehheee...sorry, I don't equate freedom with the ability to carry a firearm.
You should be sorry. It is by definition a freedom, one for which you seem to have but contempt. If you don't wish to exercise it, fine, but leave me the hell alone!


Though I'd be pissed if I couldn't have my hunting rifle, I could care less about not having a handgun.



First, they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak out for me.


The cruel irony is that I'm fighting for your freedom just as you're fighting to take mine away. :(

The words of a patriot, perhaps Benjamin Franklin, were "Those who would forego liberty to gain security deserve neither." That is ap araphrase, but ultimately true.

And they ultimately get neither as well. Security cannot be gained at the expense of liberty. Only when there is liberty can there be true security.

You should be sorry. It is by definition a freedom, one for which you seem to have but contempt. If you don't wish to exercise it, fine, but leave me the hell alone!
I hope you're kidding...but I suspect you aren't.

I'm Canadian by the way. We have no Charter right to bear arms. Nor do we give a crap. Rifles are great for hunting. Handguns much less so. So go ahead and restrict handguns as long as I can keep my rifle.





The cruel irony is that I'm fighting for your freedom just as you're fighting to take mine away. :(Funny...a lot of the gun lobbyists in the US are the same people who love the Patriot Act...

Again, if I can't hunt with a handgun, I don't want one. If you want one, then by all means have one. Get your firearm license, register your purchase, and go hard.

By the way Battlestar, out of interest, are you pro or anti-abortion?

pro life

pro life
Sorry...are you battlestar?

Pro life, anti-abortion..same thing. Though anti-abortion is nicely specific.

I don't want to give up any.

I don't want to give up any.
Any freedoms...or chocolate bars? Cuz I could really use a Kit Kat.... :eek:

Sorry, but I find that a bit ironic, being Native:). I agree with you though...to a certain extent. If rich land barons own half the country, and the country needs that land to be producing food and providing space for its populace, then by all means, expropriate. I'm for compensation however, at a fair market price.

When I talk about property, I include money. I really object to taxation when it is done for income redistribution. What difference is there between some thief that steals from me to support himself and the food stamp recipient that uses my money to buy their groceries? Only the fact that receiving welfare is more socially acceptable.


Well, what do you mean by dependency on the government? Canada tends to be a bit more socialist than the US, and there aren't really all that many cases of government dependency. Employment Insurance is limited and regulated, disability and life and really ANY other public insurance is also limited and regulated. It takes hard work to sucker the system to keep on the teat in perpetuity (and hey, don't we like to reward hard work:)). The idea of the welfare bum is a highly inflated notion. So is thinking that a completely unregulated market will somehow provide for the poor out of self-interest.

I don't know. Until recently, there wasn't much incentive to quit taking the government payments in the U.S. All you have to do is look at how many women head welfare households to get an idea that something is wrong. That's just for welfare. We need to include things like retirement and health care to start seeing how people look to the government first to solve their economic problems. The government should be the last resort for many of the problems it routinely is called on to solve.


That there is inefficiency and misuse and nepotism and just plain idiots in government, I will not argue. I'd like more people to get off their asses and do something about it...but when they do they get labeled terrorist groups:).
So much for the militia and the idea that government needs to be refreshed from time to time. I wonder if forcing unwilling citizens to serve as legislators would cut down on the crap that comes out of most legislative bodies. Kind of like jury duty, with fewer exemptions and better pay.

Sorry...are you battlestar?

Pro life, anti-abortion..same thing. Though anti-abortion is nicely specific.

OK OK, you're right I'm not so much pro life as I am anti abortion. I don't believe in killing inocent people, but killing criminals or terrorist doesn't bother me. :)

Any freedoms...or chocolate bars? Cuz I could really use a Kit Kat.... :eek:

*mails Sinuhue a Kit Kat*

When I talk about property, I include money. I really object to taxation when it is done for income redistribution. What difference is there between some thief that steals from me to support himself and the food stamp recipient that uses my money to buy their groceries? Only the fact that receiving welfare is more socially acceptable.
Part of the social contract, baby. You don't like it? Move to a country that doesn't have taxation. There are quite a few, actually.


I don't know. Until recently, there wasn't much incentive to quit taking the government payments in the U.S. All you have to do is look at how many women head welfare households to get an idea that something is wrong.
Yeah, something is wrong with the minimum wage when it makes more economic sense to stay on welfare, and something is wrong with the daycare system when it costs more to have your kids in daycare than you make working two jobs.
That's just for welfare. We need to include things like retirement and health care to start seeing how people look to the government first to solve their economic problems. The government should be the last resort for many of the problems it routinely is called on to solve.
I see you do not believe in universal health care. Well, frankly, I do. And universal education. Are you going to provide those things for others? No, just for yourself...and you'll be paying through the nose to do it, so better save up for a good university education.


So much for the militia and the idea that government needs to be refreshed from time to time. I wonder if forcing unwilling citizens to serve as legislators would cut down on the crap that comes out of most legislative bodies. Kind of like jury duty, with fewer exemptions and better pay.Militias...no....I kind of like your last idea though...lots of people talk about how they would change things...I'd like them to see how difficult and how much more complex that can be in real life. Political duty...like jury duty...nice! :p

OK OK, you're right I'm not so much pro life as I am anti abortion. I don't believe in killing inocent people, but killing criminals or terrorist doesn't bother me. :)
Thanks. I'm pro-abortion, even though I don't like it:). Not pro-choice, cuz hey....if I'm going to force you to say anti-abortion, I should follow suit, right?

Thanks. I'm pro-abortion, even though I don't like it:). Not pro-choice, cuz hey....if I'm going to force you to say anti-abortion, I should follow suit, right?

No, you can certainly say pro-choice. While you may not support abortion, you support a woman's right to choose. So you are pro-choice.

Like Velkomen, he is motivated my his dislike of abortion, not a general support of life.

So you are pro-choice, and he is anti-abortion.

No, you can certainly say pro-choice. While you may not support abortion, you support a woman's right to choose. So you are pro-choice.

Like Velkomen, he is motivated my his dislike of abortion, not a general support of life.

So you are pro-choice, and he is anti-abortion.
Meh. I'm fine with either pro-choice or pro-abortion.

OK OK, you're right I'm not so much pro life as I am anti abortion. I don't believe in killing inocent people, but killing criminals or terrorist doesn't bother me. :)

Is not just a terroist a man with a diffrent ideology. Your a bit selective on your ethics.

I hope you're kidding...but I suspect you aren't.

I'm Canadian by the way.

So am I.

We have no Charter right to bear arms.

"Life, liberty and security of the person." That's meaningless without the means to preserve it.

Nor do we give a crap.

YOU don't. Don't paint all Canadians with the same authoritarian brush.

Rifles are great for hunting. Handguns much less so.

Many handguns are designed specifically for hunting.

So go ahead and restrict handguns as long as I can keep my rifle.

"Freedom? Bah! I wasn't using it anyway!"




Again, if I can't hunt with a handgun, I don't want one. If you want one, then by all means have one. Get your firearm license, register your purchase, and go hard.
No. There's not logical basis for handgun registration or firearms licencing. Do you think it's a co-incidence that the police overwhelmingly oppose gun control? It plain doesn't work.

By the way Battlestar, out of interest, are you pro or anti-abortion?
Pro-life, except in case of extreme danger to the woman's life. The life of the unborn child necessarially overrides the mother's personal autonomy.

Pro-life, except in case of extreme danger to the woman's life. The life of the unborn child necessarially overrides the mother's personal autonomy.
Uh-huh. I'm not surprised. Pro guns, anti-abortion. So you are as selective about the freedoms you will support as I.

Is not just a terroist a man with a diffrent ideology.
A terrorist is one who uses force or the threat thereof against innocent people for their own gain. So no, to answer your question.

So am I.

"Life, liberty and security of the person." That's meaningless without the means to preserve it.
I'm sorry...where is that in the Charter?
Edit: found it: 7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
If you only feel safe with an unregistered gun in your hands, I feel sorry for you.
YOU don't. Don't paint all Canadians with the same authoritarian brush.
Funny, here I am saying I want more freedom, and here you are saying I'm authoritarian.

Many handguns are designed specifically for hunting.Sure they are. And that's just great. Now go out and register one.

"Freedom? Bah! I wasn't using it anyway!" The fact that you equate freedom with guns makes me laugh from my belly. You're an Albertan, aren't you? (so am I by the way...)


No. There's not logical basis for handgun registration or firearms licencing. Do you think it's a co-incidence that the police overwhelmingly oppose gun control? It plain doesn't work.
Frankly, I think it's been mismanaged, and been a colossal example of government ineptitude, but much like a driver's license, I have no problem with licensing folks who want to shoot guns. Ooohhhh....now I'm going to come and take away your free speech and your house and your children....MUAHHAHAHAHAHAAA! :rolleyes:

Uh-huh. I'm not surprised. Pro guns, anti-abortion. So you are as selective about the freedoms you will support as I.
Pro-right to keep and bear arms, pro-life. My politics are entirely consistent; it is no more a restriction of freedom to prevent a woman from murdering her unborn child than it is for restrict me from blowing away my noisy neighbour.

Lord Acton's proverbial fist ends where the baby begins. ;)

A terrorist is one who uses force or the threat thereof against innocent people for their own gain. So no, to answer your question.
Wow...muggers and robbers are terrorists now? That's a pretty loose definition...I guess those 'freedom fighters' in Paris who killed innocents in cafe bombs during the Nazi occupation were terrorists too.

Pro-right to keep and bear arms, pro-life. My politics are entirely consistent; it is no more a restriction of freedom to prevent a woman from murdering her unborn child than it is for restrict me from blowing away my noisy neighbour.

Lord Acton's proverbial fist ends where the baby begins. ;)
And are you anti or pro-capital punishment?

I'm sorry...where is that in the Charter?
Edit: found it:
If you only feel safe with an unregistered gun in your hands, I feel sorry for you.

Section seven. It has nothing to do with me "feeling safe," and misplaced pity is not a legitimate basis for criminal law.


Funny, here I am saying I want more freedom, and here you are saying I'm authoritarian.

Gun control is a curtailment of freedom.


Sure they are. And that's just great. Now go out and register one.

Stop treating me like a criminal.


The fact that you equate freedom with guns makes me laugh from my belly.

:rolleyes:

You're an Albertan, aren't you? (so am I by the way...)

I'm a Maritimer. Where I'm from, frankly, is irrelevent.




Frankly, I think it's been mismanaged, and been a colossal example of government ineptitude, but much like a driver's license, I have no problem with licensing folks who want to shoot guns. Ooohhhh....now I'm going to come and take away your free speech and your house and your children....MUAHHAHAHAHAHAAA! :rolleyes:
Liscencing and registration always leads to confiscation. It happened in Nazi Germany, Soviet-occupied Finland, South Africa, Kenya, Britain, Australia, New York, Chicago, Washington, D.C., and even here in Canada. You may not have a problem with the government throwing freedom out the window, but I do.

Wow...muggers and robbers are terrorists now? That's a pretty loose definition...I guess those 'freedom fighters' in Paris who killed innocents in cafe bombs during the Nazi occupation were terrorists too.
Shall we say political gain, then?

And are you anti or pro-capital punishment?
Why are you trying to pidgeon-hole me like this? So you can say "I may not love freedom, but you just pretend to! Hahahaha!!" ?

That said:


The death penalty when used properly is Pro-Life
Does a man who murders another man have a right to life?
Any man who murders another man, has declared that he does not accept the principle of individual rights. He is worse then an animal, as he has chosen to abdicate his reason, in order to act like an animal. He has adopted the code of the jungle, and must be dealt with like the animals in the jungle. He can make no claim to the principle of rights for protection. He deserves death.

Section seven. It has nothing to do with me "feeling safe," and misplaced pity is not a legitimate basis for criminal law.


Gun control is a curtailment of freedom.


Stop treating me like a criminal.
Are you treated like a criminal when you are forced to get a license to drive a vehicle? When you are forced to insure that vehicle? When you are forced to get a Social Insurance number? When you are forced to get a Health Care card? If you have a legitimate reason to bear arms, then do so, pay the fee, get the license, and shoot away. Otherwise, tough.


Liscencing always leads to confiscation. It happened in Nazi Germany, Soviet-occupied Finland, South Africa, Kenya, Britain, Australia, New York, Chicago, Washington, D.C., and even here in Canada. You may not have a problem with the government throwing freedom out the window, but I do.Where and when were guns confiscated in Canada?

By the way, my dad would kick my ass right now for 'defending' registration, but oh well. It's really kind of a non-issue for me...though I admit, I don't like the connotation that people with unregistered firearms are necessarily gun-nut militia members.

But your very heated reaction to this topic just switched on my devil's advocate mode. I'm bad that way.

Maritimer...and you hunt with a handgun? What the hell!???

Why are you trying to pidgeon-hole me like this? So you can say "I may not love freedom, but you just pretend to! Hahahaha!!" ?

That said:
Trying to feel out your views. You see, you say your beliefs are not contradictory, but frankly, EVERYONE'S beliefs are somewhat contradictory. I don't believe in violence in any form, yet I kill and eat animals. I believe in wider political freedom, but I agree that some restrictions are necessary, even desireable (seatbelt laws, anti-smoking etc.) You are pro-gun, anti-abortion, pro-death penalty, and no matter your justification, in some way this is a contradiction. So what? For this reason I refuse to align myself with any particular political ideology, other than to say very vaguely that I am left...with exceptions.

The fact that you take my tentative approval of gun registration to mean I hate freedom is silly.

Shall we say political gain, then?
Ok...that might work a bit better. But then again, the founders of the US would then be terrorists, and the British Empire was just a bunch of terrorists, and so on and so on. You won't be seeing that in a history text near you any time soon:).

People just call others terrorists when they don't agree with their politics, and freedom fighters are the ones they DO agree with. Any group using the tactics you describe disgust me...but here's another contradiction we both may share...I do believe that if a government is tyrannical, then reistance is necessary. Then we'd both be terrorist.... :(

Are you treated like a criminal when you are forced to get a license to drive a vehicle? When you are forced to insure that vehicle?

You know what I hate? When people try to compare automobiles to firearms. A handgun has maybe five controls: a car has more than twenty, half of which are needed every time you operate it. If you let your attention waver for even a second while driving a car, disaster could easily ensue -- the same cannot be said of a locked and secured weapons. These are completely seperate issues, and should be recognized as such.


When you are forced to get a Social Insurance number? When you are forced to get a Health Care card?

What the hell do those have to do with anything?


If you have a legitimate reason to bear arms, then do so, pay the fee, get the license, and shoot away. Otherwise, tough.

GET YOUR HANDS OFF MY FREEDOM, YOU DAMN DIRTY LIBERAL!


Where and when were guns confiscated in Canada?

Firearms were confiscated from Japanese Canadians in the 1940s. In the 1970s and 1990s, further legislation restricting the types of arms which may be owned; certain firearms must now be surrendered to the government (without confiscation) upon the death of their owner.


By the way, my dad would kick my ass right now for 'defending' registration, but oh well. It's really kind of a non-issue for me...though I admit, I don't like the connotation that people with unregistered firearms are necessarily gun-nut militia members.

Could have fooled me.

But your very heated reaction to this topic just switched on my devil's advocate mode. I'm bad that way.

I get upset when people try to take my freedom away.


Maritimer...and you hunt with a handgun? What the hell!???
I never said that. I only said -- and this is the truth -- they are a great many handguns designed specifically for hunting.

Ok...that might work a bit better. But then again, the founders of the US would then be terrorists, and the British Empire was just a bunch of terrorists, and so on and so on. You won't be seeing that in a history text near you any time soon:).

The founding fathers were fighting against authoritarian British governance (which attempted, among other things, to steal their firearms). The British could hardly have been called "innocent."

I do believe that if a government is tyrannical, then reistance is necessary. Then we'd both be terrorist.... :(
In such a case, the government could hardly be called innocent. ;)

GET YOUR HANDS OFF MY FREEDOM, YOU DAMN DIRTY LIBERAL!

Sorry...I just had Charleton Heston's voice in my mind saying, "Get your hands of me, you damn, dirty ape!"

Cripes man, lower your blood pressure. Not once have I said I was going to come take your guns away.



Firearms were confiscated from Japanese Canadians in the 1940s. In the 1970s and 1990s, further legislation restricting the types of arms which may be owned; certain firearms must now be surrendered to the government (without confiscation) upon the death of their owner.
Ah, a shining day in our national history that...

Yeah, there are a few guns my dad has that he can't pass down...too bad the government would compensate people for them, at the least. Oh well.

In any case, I abhor the fact that you would restrict a woman's right to an abortion, or that you would condone the murder of another human being, regardless of what crime they have committed. You don't hear me screaming about you trying to take away my freedom, do you? Again, calm down.

The founding fathers were fighting against authoritarian British governance (which attempted, among other things, to steal their firearms). The British could hardly have been called "innocent."


In such a case, the government could hardly be called innocent. ;)
Your opinion. I'm sure the British thought differently.

Is not just a terroist a man with a diffrent ideology. Your a bit selective on your ethics.

You're crazy man, let me repeat what I said. I will admit that I am not pro life, but anti abortion. I do not think that innocent babies, or Terry Shiavos should be killed. I do however think that terrorists and murderers should die because of their crimes against humanities. If you take a life then your life will be taken.

You know what I hate? When people try to compare automobiles to firearms. A handgun has maybe five controls: a car has more than twenty, half of which are needed every time you operate it. If you let your attention waver for even a second while driving a car, disaster could easily ensue -- the same cannot be said of a locked and secured weapons. These are completely seperate issues, and should be recognized as such.



The analogy works because, for purposes of safety, the arguments for licensing are the same. Sure there's little threat from a locked and secure gun; that's the whole point of safeties and what-have-you. There's also little threat from a vehicle when it's parked and the emergency brake is pulled. Using your line of reasoning, they would both be harmless if stowed properly; you can't drive a car while it's in park with the emergency brake pulled and you can't operate a gun while it's locked away in a gun safe with the safety on.

All the threat (in both cases) comes from their use (and potential misuse). You dick around with a car, you will quite likely end up hurting yourself and others. The same is true of guns: many an idiot has offed himself or a friend just having a little fun with a gun.

And finally to licensing, the point I was making in the first place. Using your case, Battlestar, I'll show you how it's just as important (if not more so) to get licensed for a gun as it is to get licensed for a car, if you plan on owning/operating one.

A handgun has maybe five controls: a car has more than twenty, half of which are needed every time you operate it.

It's a lot simpler to operate a gun, a device made with the sole purpose of slaughtering people (alright, animals too. But I'm mostly referring to handguns, the overwhelming majority of which are made for "personal defense" [read: people perforators]) than it is to even back a car out of a driveway. Virtually anyone can shoot a gun, as kids in the States are proving practically monthly. Compared to automobiles, they are (a) simpler to operate, (b) cheaper to obtain/maintain and (c) deadlier as far as capacity for and manufacturer's intent to harm is concerned, especially after taking (a) and (b) into consideration.

Knowing this, I have a hard time understanding how you can oppose licensing and registration of firearms. You need a license to operate a vehicle and it has "more than twenty" controls; it's not even meant to be harmful to anything (except perhaps the environment, but that's a rant for another thread :) ), but licenses are required because the potential for serious damage is there. Why not guns, which are made for killing and only have "maybe five controls" to keep the attention from wavering? :p