I guess I am getting at the whole idea that I have the right to use illegal drugs; or any harmful substance, without thought for the common good or the common dollar. Personal choices are rarely personal--they nearly always effect someone. A child, a govt. agency, a community service...just a thought, ya know.

When I was away from my parents I exercised several rights without their permission, as was my right.

to perhaps be more palatable, forget being an addict. Think of grandma who insisted on biscuits and gravy or big mac's three times a day with heart trouble, the bar tender who got CA from second hand smoke, the daredevil who drives too fast and crashes...if anyone has the right to do anything they want with their bodies, how can I be responsible for their care? yet, we have welfare care.

Your rights are still your rights even if someone is preventing you from exercising them or is violating them. Does your right to own property disappear if someone steals your property? Of course not. You have the right to free speech even when the government is preventing you from exercising that right.

Our rights are immutable. They can not go away. They can not be given away, traded, bought, sold, or voted on. They are like gravity. If everyone on earth voted for gravity to disappear, we'd still have it.

You alone are responsible for your own healthcare. All government funded healthcare or social programs are wrong. There should be plenty of non-profits that might offer you help, but if they don't you have only yourself to blame.

When you consent to take part in an activity, you are consenting to the risks involved in it. If you sleep with street walkers, you might get an STD and you'll have only yourself to blame. It should be noted that there hasn't been a single case of an STD in the more than 30 years of legal prostitution in Nevada. In fact there hasn't even been a case of someone getting the sniffles.

If you consent to use dangerous drugs, you have only yourself to blame if you become addicted. It should be noted that not all drug use is drug abuse, and that if the government ended the failed "war on drugs", they would be very affordable and dosages would be regulated and measured so we'd have fewer deaths from overdose, virtually zero deaths from gang warfare for drug territory, families wouldn't be broken up and wouldn't have to collect welfare, and even addicts could support their habit with a regular job so there would be fewer robberies to pay for it.

The government is here to protect us from each other. It's not here to protect us from ourselves.

I think it's very civilized. Those who die due to irresponsibility (though we hope them to be few in number) would serve as an example to others of why they should act responsibly.

& if you've always been sick, so what! Right Radar?

Personal decisions USUALLY effect more than just ourselves. That's my point. Lots of CA patients are addicted to pain meds-thru no fault of their own. Are mentally ill people responsible for their mental illness? This is too slippery a slope for me and I'm a misanthrope to boot.

So. I am responsible for my own health care, my own police force?

BTW--I'm all for legalized prostitution.

Whether our decisions "effect" others only matters if that effect is physical harm, endangerment, or the violation of your person, property, or rights. We can't use government to lock people up who hurt your feelings.

As far as people who are sick through no fault of their own, they should get insurance, or rely on private non-profit charities like Doctors without borders as well as friends, family, neighbors, their church, or hospitals and clinics who are willing to help them out.

Nobody is OWED healthcare paid for by unwilling others. You have the right to get any healthcare you can afford or which you can get honestly through charity or other means. You do not have the right to use thugs (government) to force others to pay for it. The same is true of education, charity, retirement, etc.

Police on the otherhand are another matter. Other than in anarchy and lawlessness, a society does have legitimate laws to protect one persons property, rights, and self against attack by others. We have the right to defend ourselves by any means necessary and to hire agents to do that for us. This prevents the weak from being victimized by the strong. This is why a police force is unlike government funded (theft) charity is wrong, but government funded police are not.

I was thinking of children who are caught up in the nuttiness of the behaviour of their parents/guardians. I wasn't talking about "feelings"--but you knew that.

Legislating morality is "feelings".
That still is off topic from helping those who need it. The two are unrelated.

"Get insurance", where, from the magic insurance lamp? LOL, that was hilarious, "get insurance"... LMAO!

I don't really care about the morality or immorality of the act. My behavior impacts others whether I intend it to or not. That's all I'm saying. In a perfect world, naturally, it wouldn't--what I did would only affect me--not my kids, not my family, not my community. It doesn't really work that way.

Radar alienates where ever he goes. I was trying to get answers and he just wants to take pot shots and jab. I don't see his uber-defensive attitude helping his political ambitions.

How is that hilarious? People buy insurance every single day. Were it not for my insurance, the birth of my child a few days ago would have cost me close to $100,000. The few hundred a month I pay in comparison is a pittance.

My political ambitions are over. I'm no longer a member of the Libertarian Party and I choose not to vote anymore or run for office. I'm concentrating on raising my child and will most likely move to another country before this one collapses under its own debt and increasing levels of socialism, authoritarianism and the mixing of church and state.

Uhhh... that was a quick shift...

Will you keep dual citizenship for your daughter? Or make a clean break?

I remember how hard you had to work to get your wife over here---will you go back to her home country?

My daughter doesn't have dual citizenship. She's an American citizen. I haven't really chosen another country yet, but it most likely would not be Vietnam, although they are moving closer to freedom and America is moving further away from it.

I couldn't recall your wife's native country--I knew it was an Asian country--though not which one.

IF you did decide to live in another country-would you keep your daughter's American citizenship? I worded my question weird the first time. I know some countries let you keep it (i believe the Netherlands is one, Ireland and Italy are others) and others do not--a friend told me Canada will NOT let Americans have dual citizenship.

Living in a society provides everyone in that society with benefits. The majority of us must agree to that because if not, we'd be living as hermits in caves, totally disconnected from society and the benefits there-of.

Nothing in this world comes for free. You always have to pay the ferryman.

If you want the benefits of living in society, that society has the right to say how you should live within it, so laws are created which suit the majority at the time of their making.

Sometimes these laws need to addressed because they've become outdated or even obsolete.

If you don't like living by the laws of society, then don't live in it or do something about those laws.

I suggest comming to Australia if you like strict gun laws. :)

I suggest moving to a country at war if you like the idea of being able to carry machine guns around the street. :)

Living within a society does not mean giving up rights. It means common protection under the law. It means people agree not to harm each other and face consequences if they don't.

The "benefits of living in a society" are merely that you stand up for each other when something happens. Those benefits do not include taking from those who earn to provide food, shelter, education, healthcare, etc. for those who don't.

Society has no rights; only individuals do. Society has limited powers. They are limited to what the people grant to it. One individual has no authority to take the earnings of another to pay for their own wants or perceived needs. This means they may not legitimately grant this power to government.

The wants of millions of people are less than the rights of a single person.

Australia is a beautiful place, but I see it as having a bunch of rednecks with different accents. The Southern United States are beautiful too, but I wouldn't want to live there either. And I can carry a gun all I want there.

I prefer to live in a free country that has citizens rather than subjects and you won't find freedom in the UK or any of its former colonies.

As ZippyT would say - "bu-bye"

Before you go, are you going to back up any of your attack on me with evidence, or just admit you lied.

Watch out, Bri! This is where Wolf swoops in and dismisses what you've said, saying you were picked last in kick ball, or some crap like that.

But with the internet we have what fills the need for socializing, without the cost. My cave is air conditioned.

Here there is one more hurdle. The desired law must pass Constitutional muster to make sure the majority didn't pass a law to fuck with the minority. That's the difference between our system and a pure democracy.


aside.... I believe using heroin is legal, while buying, selling, and possession is not. Isn't that why they take a user to the hospital instead of jail?

Your friend's information is outdated.


http://www.uscitizenship.info/en_US/...ip/ans/g96.jsp

Insurance is not available to everyone. People who already have a condition needing treatment at the time of application are often refused. That would include people who are born needing treatment and continue to need it when they can no longer be included on their parents' plan. No?

You mean like the mountain of evidence already given? But as a pathological liar and the asshole you are, you would probably deny I ever did.

Quote me. If there's so much, just do it. No need for name calling.

Scroll back yourself jackass. And there is a need for name calling. When someone is an outrageously idiotic asshole constantly and tells lies about those who use guns and who even denies a FACT like our natural right to own guns, they are begging to be called names.

You're a fucking worthless idiot.

Now you get what you want so badly you little troll.

Your right to own guns is not a fact. You just made it a fact because it is your perspective on how everyone should live. That means not everyone thinks it is a fact that it is your right to own a gun. All you are doing is forcing your views on other people and pathetically thinking that your way to live is the right way to live. There is no right way to live and hopefully you can accept that. What you are doing is just the same thing as forcing people not to own guns but in the reverse form.

My right to own a gun IS a fact. It's as much a fact as is your existence. If you deny my right to own guns, you deny your own existence and that of all human beings.

It's not my "perspective" and it's not an "opinion". It's a cold, hard, undeniable fact.

We have rights and those who claim otherwise deny facts. I don't demand that anyone else have a gun, I only demand that they don't infringe on my right to do so. If they do, they will get my gun bullets first.

Prove that it is a fact. Have fun with abstract concepts.

Prove that it isn't. The problem is you're applying the concept only to guns when it applies to everything you do. The rights you are born with, you can't fully exercise until you are of age, because your parents with the help of society, suppress your freedom of choice.

That doesn't mean you lost them, because when you reach the age, you can exercise them..... unless you escape before then. Then It's up to you what rights you want to relinquish and for what in return.

If you have a ball, but your parents won't let you play with it until you're 18, it's still your ball. If your parents destroy it, you've lost it, but thats only because it's a physical item. That's also exactly why rights can't be taken away, they can only be given away.

Radar, I don't think refering to a whole nation as a bunch of rednecks is going to endear anyone to your cause.

I would argue that we have a higher level of freedom in Australia than just about anywhere else in the western world.

I guess I can excuse you for your ignorance though. How would you really know what it's like here?

You are probably right, Ali, simply because you have the elbow room. With a population of 20 million it's easier to do what you wish with out stepping on someone's toes. It's that toe stepping that makes them want to come up with new restrictions, like a teacher trying to keep order in an overcrowded class by making more rules.

Oh, and you say redneck like it's a bad thing. Tell her Buster.

Yeah, we have more room, but most of it's desert where no one except indigenous people have been able to live. We definitely don't have the same issues with population that other more populated countries do, but we still don't have enough resources to support what we do have. Namely water at the moment. Our deserts are growing, water is becomming more scarce, and yet our primary industries are not changing their way of thinking in order to face these changes head on.

We definitely have issues here, and definitely some things are more highly regulated than others, but in my experience and from my own observations, we still have a very ideal lifestyle here. Maybe I only say that because I've lived here all my life so I'm culturally socialized to think that way, but it's amazing how many people from other countries are enthralled with the lifestyle here. There must be something attractive about it.

Hmmm...I don't want to get into a discussion with Buster. I don't think he likes me. lol

Oh well.

Not true. I like most folks that I've met from downunder.

As an outsider with limited input, I get the impression that generally life there is more laid back and less go go go than here.

Well it's nice to know you don't dislike me buster. I had the feeling you didn't (or found me particularly annoying) after your responses to a couple of my posts recently.

Yeah, life here is pretty sweet as far as day to day stuff goes. Australian's are also generally very socially conscious. This could be either a symptom or a cause of our social service system. Either way, there are good safety nets in place which probably directly contributes to generally lower levels of stress in the general population.

The "level of freedom" can be measured in a number of ways. I say if you can't carry a gun you don't have any freedom at all. I'd say America is a much more free place than Australia, though you're ok on prostitution.

I do know a bit about Australia, having been there when I was on a WestPac in the Navy, and having quite a number of Australian friends. A friend of mine has art displayed in an Australian museum. Australians in general are very friendly people; even those who are less educated about things like freedom...like you.

I was even approached about teaching for the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology a few years ago.

Now you're just being a rude prick Radar. There's no need.

I hope your daughter is doing well.

Cya.

Man that was backward.
You just can't get it.
Freedom, remember?
The right to be free.
We own guns because we have the right to be free... we force nothing on others.
You are perfectly free not to own a gun.
Our way we both live as we like.

Your way, you FORCE others to your will because you can't stand the fact that they don't agree with you.
Pretty simple, but you won't get it because you choose not to understand freedom.

I see. So if I don't check with you to see whether or not its ok for me to have a gun then I'm forcing my view on you?

If you had made that post when Daniel Webster was still alive, your words would have been immortalized as a timeless example in the definition of self-contradictory.

One thing I can tell you, sir: no right of mine is contingent on your opinion. And if the argument - or rather that bullet in your left foot you just proferred as one is any example of how developed your socio-political ideas are then maybe you should stick with engineering.

Noooooo.... you would be FORCING your freedom upon him! LOL!!!

Unbelievable isn't it? For a minute, I actually thought PH's parakeet escaped, got into the tequila then tap-danced that post out itself.

LOL!

Really pierceh. -- you must not insist on being tied up and forced to be free. And don't insist that is what the people of freedom are doing to anyone, let alone you.

When you pass from teenager to full adult (not snarking here, this is but an observation of the road we've all of us walked, some more recently than others) you'll understand how you put your foot in that pitfall. It's possible you'll not do so again. But do learn the lesson, or you will put your foot in it again -- stress, too, upon will.

Paging through an NRA magazine this afternoon while trying to recover from a bit of sunburn I got from attending a Memorial Day ceremony outdoors -- Noxema is my friend -- I found this remark:

"Liberal journalist Michael Kinsley famously quoted a colleague as saying, 'If liberals interpreted the Second Amendment the way they interpret the rest of the Bill of Rights, there would be law professors arguing that gun ownership is mandatory.'" -- Jonah Goldberg

It is my view that this thing that Spexx wants so very badly is exactly the thing he must not get. Not because Spexx wants it, but because the thing he wants is so very wrong -- and Spexx needs a new prescription because he cannot see the wrongness of it.

If Spexx is not converted from this hellroad path, that's of small moment so long as no one else in the Cellar nor anywhere else goes with him. Derisive laughter -- optional, and not recommended. However, if he is converted, hallelujahs are in order.

There's still plenty of room over here with the angels, Spexx.

But you must cease to fear the wrath in your own soul. I embraced mine and found constructive outlets for it -- martial arts are wonderful that way. Thus I avoided repression and the irrational outbursts repression can fuel -- and does make necessary, on some level.

Grow up, if you make the initial claim it is your job to back it up. Radar made the claim with no proof and I asked him to prove it so it is his job to back the claim up.

If you really want me too I can. As an American or a westerner you can say it is your "right" because in our society we usually accept the ability to own a gun to protect yourself as a “right”. That “right” doesn't apply to every society though, which means it isn't universal. So, if the ability to own a gun to protect yourself is not universal that means it is not a universal “right”.

Just because something is a "right" in American or western society doesn't mean that it is universal.

Another example, we say we have a "right" to own property. In a communist, anarchical, or even in most Native American societies there is no personal property (land). Are those people having their "rights" taken away from them? In our society we see it that way but they (as long as they support the regime) will disagree with you. Are either of you right? No, it is just perspective.

That was hilarious.

Prove me wrong...

Are any of you familiar with a book called "Instinct Shooting" by Lucky McDaniel? My stepfather bought a copy for me years ago (and I think it was out of print even then). I was looking for it this morning, but most of our books are stacked in bags in the basement and I couldn't find it.

Instinct Shooting was developed by Lucky, and he would demonstrate the technique using an old bb gun with the sites removed. His finale was to shoot another bb thrown in the air. He was able to teach this technique to a large number of people in a single four-hour lesson, including shooting through a piece of clear tape over a lifesaver rolling across the floor, without breaking the lifesaver, and without using sites.

I'm wondering if any one here has been trained in this technique.

You've proven nothing other than your own ignorance of what rights are. Our rights don't come from society and can't be taken away by society. We are born with our rights and our rights are universal and the same regardless of what "society" we happen to live in. If "society" violates our rights, it doesn't mean that we don't have those rights. It doesn't matter if "society" recognizes rights, they still exist.

We are born with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Part of life is defending that life by any means necessary. Any claims by "society" to the contrary are irrelevant. Any claims that we don't have rights is laughable and ludicrous.

Society has no rights. Society is nothing but a collection of individuals and as such, it may have no more powers than we, as individuals, have to grant to it. Society has no legitimate powers over those of a single individual.

I was taught when young by my grandfather, he is amazing... pretty sure he met Lucky. He knew a few slingers and was fair himself. I am a natural. Have not trained for a long time, it hurts my shoulder and wrist now, I hit what I shoot at though. Mostly I shoot B-27 police silhouette but am now doing some FBI bulls-eyes, the cop's are getting too easy.
On the ranch when I practice sniping I use melons, no reason to travel over a thousand yards or two to look at a shot again.
Honestly, I just want one anti to tell me what my target practicing and legal carry does to them, what it actually does. No emotion, just fact.

I would not matter. Every time I refute you with logic and reason you just don't reply.
I have already done so and you are still spewing the same nanny-state, totalitarian crap.
Just own it, you don't believe in freedom, you think you are better than others and think you should be able to tell them how to live, think and act because you are an elitist snob.
Own it, you will feel better.

Obviously he doesn't believe in freedom. He doesn't even know what freedom is. He denies the existence of rights or he thinks they come from "society". He's clueless.