It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
NO, illegal means a particular act deserves punishment, period.
Illegal means- "you did not have the right to do it."
Originally posted by Honor93
but, laws haven't even reduced drunk driving let alone prevent it.
laws have never prevented murder, what makes you think they would ?
Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by Bluesma
so, if not 'nature' then what ??
did government give you life ?
maybe a specific breeding law that i've never encountered ?
was it just a 'miracle' to you or what exactly ?
i do not follow that train of thought, please clarify.
do you see yourself as a product of science ?
if you believe in or exercise 'free will', where did it come from ?
illegal means a particular act deserves punishment, period.
how you interpret punishment as removing a 'right' is beyond me
"self-evident" = santa claus language ??
animals recognize 'self-evident' without any dogma, why can't you ??
but, laws haven't even reduced drunk driving let alone prevent it. laws have never prevented murder, what makes you think they would ?
if your 'kid' isn't of 'lawful age' to be driving the equipment, he/she and you are lawbreakers ... that's the point. in your mind, that's ok cause no one is around for him to harm ... who cares that it would be illegal, right ?
it is no more legal to litter on the roadway than it is at a carnival. location nor concentration of ppl make a dang difference.
also, i thought you said you had 'links' to share ??
what happened ?? couldn't find any to back up this BS ??
With the industrial revolution still making its presence noticed, railroads and, more importantly, fields, began being flooded with traction-engined vehicles (aka road locomotives). To get from place to place, locomotives had to cross urban, populated ares and, despite the fact the were slow, noisy and impossible to miss, they posed quite a threat to the innocent bystanders. Or horses.
Scared by the prospects of a respectable citizen getting squashed, as well as by the prospects of hearing one of the damn things huffing and puffing in the quiet of the night, the British Parliament adopted what became know as the Locomotive on Highways Act, in 1861.
The provisions of the legislation seem somewhat hilarious now and, even some lost their significance over time. Some, however, have formed the basis for today's traffic legislation. It only stated that the vehicles' weight should be at most 12 tons and imposed a 10 mph (16km/h) speed limit. No idea how they knew a vehicle is speeding...
In 1865, the act is revised and turned into the Locomotive Act (aka Red Flag Act). It required that a motorized vehicle, regardless of its purpose, be preceded by a man carrying a red flag when traveling on the highway .
Speed limits were reduced to 4 mph (6 km/h) in non-urban areas and at 2 mph (3 km/h) in cities (still no idea how they caught speeding vehicles "in the act"). But the most important addition was the requirement to use at least three people to operate a vehicle: one to drive, a stoker, and one carrying a red flag (hence, the name) and a lantern.
The one with the flag was used for two purposes: he slowed the vehicle down, as it was forced to drive at walking speed, and warned approaching pedestrians and horse riders of their presence
Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by JuniorDisco
no, i stated that even with laws, neither has been reduced.
i don't generally ponder hypotheticals but i can say this ... there were less fatal incidents BEFORE the laws were enacted and enforced. (regarding drinking and driving)
as for murder, those incident have actually been decreasing since the prior AWB expired in 2008. read it for yourself here
so, if the climate society ("authority") decide/legislate that i fart too much, does that remove my right to fart ??
Illegal means your particular society has deemed the act unacceptable, and they have determined certain punishments to go with them
so, if i rip the stinkiest fart ever, does that mean that those around me are restricted from removing themselves from the stench cause it might 'hurt my feelings' ??
Legal means they have deemed the act to be acceptable and determined that all members must agree to strive to allow each other that act
no, every social interaction culminates in one of two methods and only these two methods ... persuasion or force.
Social animals (which we are) have the drive to form social groupings as one way of increasing their chances of survival. Part of that working effectively is by members adhering to limits of behavior meant to protect each others lives?
they also kill within the group for the same reasons
You can kill an outsider with no punishment. Because the right and responsibility exists only within the group
not really considering drunk driving laws have been around since 1910.
Yes, the numbers of innocent deaths due to drunk driving went down with drunk driving laws.
but that's ok in your view, right ??
Yes, we are lawbreakers in that case.
so, his ability to harm himself matters not to you or what ?
But it is just plain stupid to focus so much on the language to forget the REASON.
IF you are a parent, why should anyone ELSE have to tell you to mind the laws ??
If someone tells me, hey, there are people who go on that road of yours now, so your son driving the truck on it puts them at risk" I would make sure he didn't do it anymore.
no, that is called 'selective enforcement' and exactly why we have a generation of 'bullies'.
The police tolerate it because common sense is respected in this world-
lawyers don't 'rule' in this country anywhere, let alone with or without rhetoric
lawyers don't rule in this country with retoric.
police who are actually enforcing the law, wouldn't tolerate it anywhere.
I know the police wouldn't tolerate it if we lived in a big city (and I recognize why!)
yes, and a nulear warhead is NOT a defensive weapon.
But a nuclear warhead or a biological weapon are just objects
link it please, otherwise you are making stuff up.
Your claim is that if murder wasn't against the law it would still have the same prevalence
Originally posted by Honor93
please, entertain us ... contraception doesn't even need to involve human contact anymore.
having "thumbs" give you the right to use them ...
so, what do 'thumbs' have to do with 'natural' rights ??
so, if i rip the stinkiest fart ever, does that mean that those around me are restricted from removing themselves from the stench cause it might 'hurt my feelings' ??
since firearms are quite legal, why isn't everyone ELSE striving to allow each other that legal act ??
i beg your pardon but nature is NOT a power that is beyond man, untouchable, unquestionable or unchallenging. if you really believe that, it is no wonder you cannot grasp this."
Social animals (which we are) have the drive to form social groupings as one way of increasing their chances of survival. Part of that working effectively is by members adhering to limits of behavior meant to protect each others lives?
no, every social interaction culminates in one of two methods and only these two methods ... persuasion or force.
You can kill an outsider with no punishment. Because the right and responsibility exists only within the group they also kill within the group for the same reasons
not really considering drunk driving laws have been around since 1910.
now, post 1980, after concentrated enforcement of existing laws, yes, they have ... very minimally.
Originally posted by Honor93
Yes, we are lawbreakers in that case. but that's ok in your view, right ??
so, his ability to harm himself matters not to you or what ?
and if he does get hurt because you chose to turn a blind eye, should we hold you responsible or the lack of enforcement of existing laws
IF you are a parent, why should anyone ELSE have to tell you to mind the laws ??
no, that is called 'selective enforcement' and exactly why we have a generation of 'bullies'.
police who are actually enforcing the law, wouldn't tolerate it anywhere.
and, that's the point.
how can we control 'arms' when the biggest "illegal arms dealers" are the "lawyers" at the top of the food chain ??
Eric Holder, remember?
perhaps this 'selective enforcement' of existing laws is where the biggest change should originate ??
when have i 'refused' to discuss the license issue ??
not derailing this topic with more 'license' BS.
Originally posted by syrinx high priest
1) please read the 2nd ammendment before you use it to defend 'merica
2) please get a gun safe
3) please move on to another story, there are no new laws that weren't already passed under clinton
Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by JuniorDisco
yes, and a nulear warhead is NOT a defensive weapon.
But a nuclear warhead or a biological weapon are just objects
nor are the oleanders in my yard outlawed. (biological weapon)
semantics seldom sway any logical debate.
Originally posted by JuniorDisco
Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by JuniorDisco
yes, and a nulear warhead is NOT a defensive weapon.
But a nuclear warhead or a biological weapon are just objects
nor are the oleanders in my yard outlawed. (biological weapon)
semantics seldom sway any logical debate.
It's irrelevant whether it's a defensive weapon or not. I was responding to the assertion that these are just "objects" and what matters is the person handling them.
In that sense a nuclear warhead is just an object. And logically we should all be allowed one.
Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by JuniorDisco
no it's not.
how do you figure these two statements say the same thing?
1. you really saying that if drunk driving and murder were unpunishable by law there would be the same number of both instances?
2. no, i stated that even with laws, neither has been reduced.
#1 assumes fact not evidenced.
#2 proves the facts stated based on evidence.
this topic is not about driving or driving drunk or laws about driving or driving drunk.
any chance you could stay on topic ?
murder has been 'illegal' in the US since before it was the US.
colonists were punished for acts of murder long before 1775 ... so, what's your point here ?
when did i make this claim ??
link it please, otherwise you are making stuff up.
Your claim is that if murder wasn't against the law it would still have the same prevalence
laws do not deter, prevent or restrict bad behavior ... that is and was my assertion.
laws governing and restricting firearm ownership (AWB) have done NOTHING to reduce violent crime. however, increased firearm ownership has directly influenced a steady reduction in said violent crime. this cannot be denied.
i also will suggest that when we had more firearms throughout society, we had much less crime, a much more polite society and less need for 'law enforcement'. this too cannot be denied.
huh? what do either of these have to do with firearms ??
if there were no penalty for sexual assault, it would increase exponentially.
surprisingly, even without substantial convictions for said assaults, increased firearm ownership (since 2009) has reflected a decrease in such assaults.
so, are ppl less likely to commit said assault because of the 'law' or because of the 'risk' ??
and, since when is firearm ownership worthy of incarceration ?
Originally posted by Xen0m0rpH
Originally posted by JuniorDisco
Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by JuniorDisco
yes, and a nulear warhead is NOT a defensive weapon.
But a nuclear warhead or a biological weapon are just objects
nor are the oleanders in my yard outlawed. (biological weapon)
semantics seldom sway any logical debate.
It's irrelevant whether it's a defensive weapon or not. I was responding to the assertion that these are just "objects" and what matters is the person handling them.
In that sense a nuclear warhead is just an object. And logically we should all be allowed one.
Well that's how the government thinks of it.
The U.S. government can have 5,000 Nuclear warheads, but those Iranians...no, they can't have one.