People need to be more responsible.

[Dangerous55]

This will be the next revolution. Well, I have been thinking about this stuff long and hard. People just need to be more responsible. We shouldnt need the Government to tell us what we can and cannot do. Individuals and society should. If I want to own a fully automatic machine gun, I damn well should be able to. If I want to drink a beer at the age of 19, I should be able to, amongst other things. Basically, this is scratching the surface but we could have a much better system if people would just control themselves. We are clearly not ready for it, but maybe one day. Although, if civil rights get tighter and tighter there will be some violent times coming up.

[ajenteks]

Nah, it's not going to happen like that. It's going to be the stupid and weak, wanting entilements and handouts (with no responsibility) against the smart and the strong, or what's left of them after they've been drained dry.

[Shigecki]

On 2006-07-04 23:03, Dangerous55 wrote:
We shouldnt need the Government to tell us what we can and cannot do. Individuals and society should. If I want to own a fully automatic machine gun, I damn well should be able to. If I want to drink a beer at the age of 19, I should be able to, amongst other things.


And if a 35 year old man wants to have sex with 12 year olds, damn he should be able to. If someone wants to own a nuclear weapon, by all means let that person have it, right? Maybe we should go back to a time before labor laws were around. When does what you want interfere with what someone else wants or doesn't want? This is why the government is around (or supposed to be). Without rules, there is chaos.

I'm not too sure what responsibility has to do with it. Others will want what others have. If you feel that you are responsible enough to own a fully automatic machine gun, so would someoone else, and so on and so on. If everyone is responsible enough, then why have one? I can only see one reason to own one, and that's to kill, and do it really fast. The need to own one is taken away if everyone is responsible. For the most part society does set the standards that we live by.

As far as drinking goes, what would you set the legal age to drink? 10, 11, 12, or none at all? I'm sure there are plenty of responsible 9 year olds, maybe they want a beer too.

[Blitzkommando]

"If I can join the Army and vote at 18 I should be able to drink myself stupid too!"

Really though, I have to agree. The age of drinking in the US is rather oddball especially considering the alcoholism rates in the US compared to countries with much lower age limits and much looser restrictions. I suppose the best way to say it is that if drinking is available from a younger age it isn't seen as so 'taboo' or 'adult' and thus isn't as likely to be abused (illicit drugs follow a similar path, albeit far stickier to talk about 'fixing').

People are getting fed up with the local and federal governments. There are lots of very stupid things passed by all involved. I am one of those people that is extremely frustrated, very much so with the Democrats although some of the things the Republicans have done is also pretty angering.

The problem is that politics plays into everything. And because politics and economics are forever interwoven together it makes corruption that more likely to occur. The very unfortunate thing in the end is that every generation we stand up saying 'We won't take anymore, let's fix this and get rid of these people!' but we never act upon it, or at least, very rarely. And those few times end up with rather nasty results. The two that seem to be coming to mind for me are the French and Russian Revolutions both of which were very bloody and had rather bad results in the end.

The other problem is the methods used by different groups to take control of government policy. Some groups prefer a method of 'evolution', gradually changing policy and getting voted in over a period of many years. Others... like a more drastic approach, attemting to get voted in all at once, or more than likely, 'persuading' their way into power through various methods of force, though 'revolution'. Both can be good and bad. Sometimes a revolution is necessary every once in a while to preserve the rights of the people and to show what the people want rather than what the government has become.

Every law takes away those rights that were there before. Some laws are necessary and proper, such as those pertaining to murder and physical harm of others outside of acts of self defense. Others though, like 'You shall not carry peanuts in your back pocket while at a rock concert." are rediculous and should have never been created in the first place. The problem today is that we have so many of those laws, and increasing their numbers every day that indeed something must be done.

I would go into more detail, but I am rather tired and I'm not even sure if I made any real points there at all or if I just rambled.

[KodiaX987]

I stopped reading after seeing "people" and "responsible" in the same sentence.

[Dangerous55]

On 2006-07-05 01:02, Shigecki wrote:

And if a 35 year old man wants to have sex with 12 year olds, damn he should be able to. If someone wants to own a nuclear weapon, by all means let that person have it, right? Maybe we should go back to a time before labor laws were around. When does what you want interfere with what someone else wants or doesn't want? This is why the government is around (or supposed to be). Without rules, there is chaos.

I'm not too sure what responsibility has to do with it. Others will want what others have. If you feel that you are responsible enough to own a fully automatic machine gun, so would someoone else, and so on and so on. If everyone is responsible enough, then why have one? I can only see one reason to own one, and that's to kill, and do it really fast. The need to own one is taken away if everyone is responsible. For the most part society does set the standards that we live by.

As far as drinking goes, what would you set the legal age to drink? 10, 11, 12, or none at all? I'm sure there are plenty of responsible 9 year olds, maybe they want a beer too.




Ya you got, people whould be free to do whatever they want, anything, including nuking the planet.


Humanity does not need a government to tell it what to do. Every human knows nuking a planet is the wrong thing to, and murder and rape. It is just that alot of people fuck things. The point of the post is that civil liberties are limited by individuals who are not responsible. Believe me, I know what I am talking about will happen, at least most of it. But if people were responsible, and could control what they do(drunking driving is a good example, don't do it) we would all be more free.

Why can't I own a full auto weapon? Do you honestly think it will make me kill people, quickly? That is such an ignorant point of view. The need to own one is taken away if everyone is responsible? No it isnt, it would be damn fun to blaze away on a TV at a range. I don't want one to kill gang members. I want it for fun. If you don't think it is fun, well screw you because I do, and it is harming nobody. It can kill, yes, so can swords, cars ,rope, clubs, fists, my dick, dragons, rocks, gravity, food, electricity, water, trains, cell phones, alchohol, druge abuse, irresponsibilty, oh wait, that is the main one. Like the dude who blows himself up with fireworks. I know what you're going to say, machine guns are made to kill. Well first off, no, and second off it is how an individual uses it. I want to own a Thompson, WW2 issue, wouldn't that just be amazing to own?

No kids at 9 should not be drinking gallons of beer. There are these things called parents. They have to teach and control there children. Do you think I would have ever drank some beers when I was 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, etc? Fuck no, my dad would have kicked my ass.


Listen I can see why you disagree, and some of it is very reasonable, some it isnt(like guns using to only kill kill kill, ugh, no, just no).

Anyway I know people will never be this responsible, but if we could get them more, it would have a more lasting and quality effect than any legislature by congress.


Norvekh, you are on the exact same page with me, that is exactly what is going on. The Founding Fathers said you should tear down the Government and start anew if you don't like the one you are living in. You are right, there should be some basic laws naturally. Nobody can kill, rape, attack, etc. And that list could be discussed in detail should anything happen. But for someone to deny me owning a firearm with over 10 rounds in the magazine is bullshit, just bullshit.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Dangerous55 on 2006-07-05 06:29 ]</font>

[zwandude15]

From an understanding point of view, I can see what you're saying. I for one, would agree with you. I'm not so much saying I'd want a gun with a huge clip, but maybe something else (like making a career out of something you're good at, instead of learning about it for four years, no laziness intended).

Besides, it's not like just ANYONE could own a nuclear device, I'm sure you're considering that the world is a profitable place, and people wouldn't sell one for just 1, not 2, but maybe a few hundred million. It would still be up to the people to make the money for the things they want, and thus, making them more responsible, or, relying on their conscious, responsible behavior.

If you had one, I'd be first to sign a petition about this. Police have too much power over the things we do nowadays. It's up to us, right? Sure, they pull over a guy who's buzzed, arrest him, and the guy's in jail now. I sure as hell bet, that this guy could've made it home safe and sound.

Only to add to your point, I'm sure there are young kids out there who can drive better than the fucks that cause an accident on the freeway. But they're restricted because they're younger? What if the kid really knew his stuff? Perhaps his dad's a mechanic, he knows the ins and outs of a car, and can drive hella good.

The responsible ones would thrive.

Survival of the fittest.

[Allos]

Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on your views), people will do stupid things and many of them are retarded. This is why government is necessary and why anarchy will never succeed.

[Dangerous55]

On 2006-07-05 09:37, Allos wrote:
Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on your views), people will do stupid things and many of them are retarded. This is why government is necessary and why anarchy will never succeed.




Eh, I don't mean anarchy at all. I just think we have way to much government.

[TheyCallMeJoe]

Government is damn necesary. It's part of the Social Contract. People give some of their liberties to a central power, and in return they get security. And with all the crazy people running around these days I wouldn't like to see any less of government.

Sure, it would be nice for people to be able to walk down dark alleys alone, in the wee hours of the morning, and not have to worry about modern-era Mr. Hyde jumping them, but that's just not going to happen. A word where everybody is responsible is too idealistic. Crazy people will not go away, so why should government?



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: TheyCallMeJoe on 2006-07-05 11:33 ]</font>

[Dangerous55]

On 2006-07-05 11:32, TheyCallMeJoe wrote:
Crazy people will not go away, so why should government?



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: TheyCallMeJoe on 2006-07-05 11:33 ]</font>



Nobody reads.

I don't want it go go away, just we don't need so damn much of it. It is so wasteful too. We have way to much government, we could be alot better off if the entire system was reconsidered. Very realistic, maybe not but we still have to discuss these things. Right, some people do need to be checked, but banning a certain item for everyone does not do anything. People getting murdered should be stopped, but not by limiting the amount of alchohol, or weapons the population has. That won't do anything but cause strife. It is sorta like this, if you teach a child to be afraid of a gun and keep one locked an tell the child to never ever touch it, what will he do? He's gonna go after it. The parent should teach responsibility, not to be afraid of the gun but to respect it for what it is, teach the child safety and how to use it properly, peacfully.

[isahn80]

The legal drinking age in Mexico is whether or not you can reach the counter. I saw a boy that couldn't be older than 8 buying a 12-pack of Tecate.



I don't want it go go away, just we don't need so damn much of it. It is so wasteful too. We have way to much government, we could be alot better off if the entire system was reconsidered.


I wholeheartedly agree. People forget that the U.S. Government was set up over 220 years ago. At that time, it was designed for an agricultural nation of maybe 4 million people. Now, we have a highly industrialized/commercialized nation of about 300 million. Quite simply, the entire system of government is archaic and should be overhauled and modernized. For example, the electoral college was created 200+ years ago because it was thought the citizens of each state would not be able to vote for a president effectively because of the poor transportation and communication at the time. Therefore, the electorals were chosen from each state to vote on a president, representing the people. This outdated process persists today, and is why America is a Republic and not a true Democracy (if it was, Gore would have won in '00).

Actually, I'm just scratching the surface (I could go on for hours). The bloated bureaucracy of the modern U.S. government is slowly eroding its own infrastructure. Dangerous55 may have a point with a "revolution..." After all, massive political change is almost always facilitated by a movement of some kind or another; more often than not a violent one.

[TheyCallMeJoe]

Ope, sorry miscommunication. I didn't intend to say "the government" as a whole...I was referring to the "lessening" of it.

[Skorpius]

On 2006-07-05 01:02, Shigecki wrote:
And if a 35 year old man wants to have sex with 12 year olds, damn he should be able to. If someone wants to own a nuclear weapon, by all means let that person have it, right? Maybe we should go back to a time before labor laws were around. When does what you want interfere with what someone else wants or doesn't want? This is why the government is around (or supposed to be). Without rules, there is chaos.

There's a difference between the examples Dangerous stated, and the examples you brought up as a counter point. Owning a gun or drinking beer have nothing to do with hurting others. Psychological trauma and forced labor are hurting other people, and cannot be used in comparison. It's one thing to set some kind of punishment for actions that hurt others, but it's another to set rules and restrictions on things that harm no one but the individual.

[K-Morfos]

On 2006-07-05 09:05, zwandude15 wrote:

The responsible ones would thrive.

Survival of the fittest.



Thats just as niave is Communism, such a concept would never work. Survival of the fittest? THE WORLD ISN'T EVEN FAIR! As for responsibility, that alone does not garantee success. Also, with all the inequality due to your socially darwinistic ideas combined with no gun control laws combines to civil war between the urban poor vs. everybody else. Social Darwinsist ideas are screwing up this country. If it weren't for those, crime rates wouldn't be half of what they are now.

[Firocket1690]

hmmmm, I think I heard somewhere communism would function if it was executed properly. Then again, people would be forced into laber of various levels, and be expected to receive the same income. Then again, America gave everybody the "pursuit of happiness" which generally allows one to fuck others over by allowing him to earn whatever, and build empires and such.

none of that above shit made any sense, did it? It's 2:43.

The next thing that comes to mind is a quote from V Is for Vendetta, (which btw, is probably the best movie I've seen in a while)
"People shouldn't be afraifd of their government, a government should be afraid of its' people."
http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_wacko.gif

[K-Morfos]

On 2006-07-05 23:44, Firocket1690 wrote:
hmmmm, I think I heard somewhere communism would function if it was executed properly. Then again, people would be forced into laber of various levels, and be expected to receive the same income. Then again, America gave everybody the "pursuit of happiness" which generally allows one to fuck others over by allowing him to earn whatever, and build empires and such.

none of that above shit made any sense, did it? It's 2:43.

The next thing that comes to mind is a quote from V Is for Vendetta, (which btw, is probably the best movie I've seen in a while)
"People shouldn't be afraifd of their government, a government should be afraid of its' people."
http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_wacko.gif



Communism is very hard to impliment compared to other economic philosphies. Implimenting is the problem, and nobody was able to do it yet. It practically requires changing human psychology. Although humans are naturally collective, its hard for them to function collectively as a mass. Outside the tribal level, it is difficult to establish a collective society. There are many reforms that can bring us more together (thank goodness), although the full thing, probably not.


PS: V for Vendetta was a great movie.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: K-Morfos on 2006-07-06 02:13 ]</font>

[KaFKa]

This post is only being made because V for Vendetta is probably the best movie made. ever.

[Kisari]

Communism is alwasy going to be great on paper, and Anarchy will always be the worst form of govt. ever. Either way around I think our government is still somewhat uptight but knowing the American people (A very extremeist society) nothing would work. Drinking is a perfect example, we drink to get shit-faced while a society like germany for example drinks for the nutrition of the beer. And on the issue of weapons, personally I think all weapon carriers, weapon entusiasts, and weapon creaters should be destroyed. Allow your socitey to carry a blade, not an AK.

[PJ]

On 2006-07-05 01:10, Norvekh wrote:
Really though, I have to agree. The age of drinking in the US is rather oddball especially considering the alcoholism rates in the US compared to countries with much lower age limits and much looser restrictions. I suppose the best way to say it is that if drinking is available from a younger age it isn't seen as so 'taboo' or 'adult' and thus isn't as likely to be abused (illicit drugs follow a similar path, albeit far stickier to talk about 'fixing').

It occurs to me that if teenagers were legally allowed to drink, less would, because then it wouldn't be so, "Going against the rules!"

I mean, if it's not legally obtainable to them, it's just more exciting for them to get/have it, right?

[Wyndham]

PJ is right, because many people I've known would prove him right in just that aspect. And I guess I should see that movie when it's released on DVD.

[Shigecki]

On 2006-07-08 14:34, PJ wrote:
It occurs to me that if teenagers were legally allowed to drink, less would, because then it wouldn't be so, "Going against the rules!"

I mean, if it's not legally obtainable to them, it's just more exciting for them to get/have it, right?



This might be true for younger aged people, but I guess we'll never know. I don't feel this wouldn't change the alcoholic rate of this country. There are alot more people that drink alcohol that are above the legal age then those that aren't. Not all alcoholics started out as a minors that would sneak into the old mans liquor cabinet.

I stopped drinking because I became way too good at it. I didn't start drinking til I was of the legal age. No I wouldn't be what anyone would consider an alcoholic, but I could see myself going that way.

I do agree that it is weird to think that at the age of 21 you are suddenly responsible enough to drink alcohol.

Not to sure if it would make anyone more responsible to lower the drinking age or get rid of it all together. A truely responsible person probably wouldn't even drink the stuff in the first place. http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Remember, these are reportd alcoholics, not total. Statistics can lie. If a country doesn't see there is a problem with drinking at any age, they may not feel it is a problem if someone is an alcoholic, or may not even know that someone is. The majority of alcoholics aren't the fall down drunk ones, they're usually the ones you wouldn't suspect.



On 2006-07-05 06:24, Dangerous55 wrote:
Why can't I own a full auto weapon? Do you honestly think it will make me kill people, quickly? That is such an ignorant point of view.


Dangerous55 I didn't mean to make it seem like you wanted to kill anyone. I have no idea who you are. You may want to or not. Sorry if I worded it that way. I was trying to say the purpose of a gun is the same as any weapon, and that's to kill. Not everyone is going to be responsible enough to own one. That was it. I'm neither for or against gun control. I've never wanted one, but I don't care if others have them. You said the individual and society should set the rules and standards for responsibility. I say that is who makes the laws in the first place. How this country is set up, we are the government.

These types of things can't be made on a person to person bases. This is why society makes the rules. You think there is too much government now, imagine how bad it would be if every person was to be analysed whether or not they were responsible to do anything. That's all I was trying to say.

It would be nice if everyone was, but that is a huge pipe dream.

[Dangerous55]

On 2006-07-08 13:05, Kisari wrote:
And on the issue of weapons, personally I think all weapon carriers, weapon entusiasts, and weapon creaters should be destroyed. Allow your socitey to carry a blade, not an AK.




You are a damn fool.


And below me, I forget the name of the gentleman who quoted me on the full auto but not all firearms are made to kill just like not all knifes are. Yes it is a big dream where everyone is responsible, but I don't want people telling me I can't go behind my house and fire a few rounds into a coal dirt pile. I could type more but I am tired. I guess it boils down to that I believe if alot more stuff was allowed, society would sort it out and we wouldnt have a social disaster and mass chaos like people think we would. I don't want Government to dissapear fully, I just think there are quite a few ridiculous restrictions.

[Daikarin]

If I want to shoot someone, I damn well should be allowed to.

What you think is your right is relative. Revolution? If everyone could do anything they wanted, we would live in complete hell. You're talking about something that's only possible if everyone shared a minimum of common morals and values - And THAT will be a true revolution.

[Dangerous55]

On 2006-07-09 14:21, Daikarin wrote:
If I want to shoot someone, I damn well should be allowed to.

What you think is your right is relative. Revolution? If everyone could do anything they wanted, we would live in complete hell. You're talking about something that's only possible if everyone shared a minimum of common morals and values - And THAT will be a true revolution.



Am I fucking stupid? Do you think I actually believe we should be allowed to do whatever we want? Jesus fucking Christ people. There should be rules, like I said before, if you would read the goddamn posts.

[Soinkus]

We should ban guns, they kill people.

We should ban television and any games with guns. Along with that, lets rewrite the history books, so weapons never existed. They encourage kids to kill with guns.

We should shutdown schools. They have a large concentration of children, impressionable children, in one area. With that many kids, if even one thinks an obscure, irresponsible thought, it will spread, and they'll kill people, with guns.

We should band parents. They make kids.

We should kill people. They're so naturally violent, that even when the guns, schools, and parents are gone, they'll want to kill. So they'll remake guns.

And the kids will kill eachother.


Seriously, you don;t need a gun to kill someone. And it most certaintly would not be the least trackable of choices to use.

Yes, there are many crimes involving firearms. But the people using them are incompetant, psychotic, or stupid to begin with.

A kid that shoots his friend because he saw it in a game is stupid, not impressionable.

A piece of garbage that tries to rob someone, and ends up shooting them in a frantic thought is not misunderstood, he's stupid and unstable.

People are going to cause crimes anyways. And I'd much rather die from a bullet than a knife wound.

[Eihwaz]

Dangerous55 and Norvekh make sense!

Personal responsibility is going the way of the dodo. Instead of exercising things like discretion or common sense, people do stupid things, and instead of realizing "Gee, my own lack of intelligence is what made something bad happen", they place the blame on the inanimate object (be it a gun, or a bottle of vodka).

Yes, a law-abiding citizen should be able to own a gun if he or she wants to.

No, that does not mean that everyone should have anti-tank rifles sitting around.

Being of a more libertarian mindset, I too prefer less government. This doesn't mean I want anarchy. I just basically agree with the statement "The best government is the one that governs least", which means that I think the best kind of government is the least invasive one.

Kafka's right, as well. V for Vendetta is an awesome movie.