Guns FFS

[kancutlawns]

Fucking Hell, I'm not jealous about anyone going to Tennessee wall to wall country music and rednecks - fuck that. I'll take San Francisco any day.

Be sure to wear some flowers in your hair

And a book down the back of your trousers.

A corogated, steel plated sheet more like.

[Hillman avenger]

Fucking Hell, I'm not jealous about anyone going to Tennessee wall to wall country music and rednecks - fuck that. I'll take San Francisco any day.

Be sure to wear some flowers in your hair

And a book down the back of your trousers.

A corogated, steel plated sheet more like.

Ah, Colin.

I had almost forgotten your childish contributions . Thank you for reminding us.

BTW have been to SF probably 8 times; love it. Tennessee includes the Smoky Mountains National Park, the largest National Park in the US. Oh and if you're in Nashville, do try the Country Museum, which includes RCA Studio B, where Elvis recorded about 70% of his hit records, and the Grand Ole Opry which is a tremendous show even if you're not a country fan. Add to that fabulous BBQ food, the city of Memphis ( home of Sun records) and the proximity of Muscle Schoals- no, not much there really.

[Dinger]

[Royal24s]

Just been in Tennessee for a couple of weeks.

I was staggered to realise that we could not buy a drink without photo ID to prove I was over 21 ( I am 66, and would be delighted to have that challenged).

The age for buying a gun, however, is 18.

During those two weeks there was news of shooting deaths every day, including in the quite small town we stayed in for part of the time.

We went to a "family dinner entertainment" one night, which was very good, but as we entered I saw a notice that the operators had received permission to require people not to bring in firearms.....

You don't need permission to say what people bring to your private premises. The 2 nd Ammendment notes a right and duty to bear arms, not to take them into people's homes without their permission.
The general subject of why it's important that the people have as much right to guns as the government is one which you wouldn't understand, so I won't go there.

[Hillman avenger]

Just been in Tennessee for a couple of weeks.

I was staggered to realise that we could not buy a drink without photo ID to prove I was over 21 ( I am 66, and would be delighted to have that challenged).

The age for buying a gun, however, is 18.

During those two weeks there was news of shooting deaths every day, including in the quite small town we stayed in for part of the time.

We went to a "family dinner entertainment" one night, which was very good, but as we entered I saw a notice that the operators had received permission to require people not to bring in firearms.....

You don't need permission to say what people bring to your private premises. The 2 nd Ammendment notes a right and duty to bear arms, not to take them into people's homes without their permission.
The general subject of why it's important that the people have as much right to guns as the government is one which you wouldn't understand, so I won't go there.

Go on.
Try me.
As for the admission of firearms, I can only stand back and wonder at your galactic knowledge, which clearly exceeds that of the people running the operation and their lawyers. You see, in their ignorance, they spent money on advice and announcements to the effect that they anticipated being challenged on constitutional grounds, on their decision that for some reason they did not feel that bringing firearms to an evening of family entertainment and dining was entirely appropriate.
No doubt Farage's support for firearms ownership here is based on ....?

[Royal24s]

It's based upon the freedom of the individual coupled with individual responsibility rather than pre-emptive legislation by an all powerful and all knowing State.
No point in debating the freedoms of man with you because you don't want them. I do, and thanks for working out the limits of my own freedoms, but no thanks - I'd prefer to be responsible for myself and I don't want to join your collective.

[Hillman avenger]

It's based upon the freedom of the individual coupled with individual responsibility rather than pre-emptive legislation by an all powerful and all knowing State.
No point in debating the freedoms of man with you because you don't want them. I do, and thanks for working out the limits of my own freedoms, but no thanks - I'd prefer to be responsible for myself and I don't want to join your collective.

I'll remember that, should I ever have one.

So the argument "I wouldn't understand" is the old facile definition of freedom. Of course, if you REALLY want freedom, you would have no laws. I would be free to murder you, for example. Of course, that would impinge on your freedom to be able to live your life safely without threat from me. And that's where the childish freedom argument starts to fail.

In a society we have to actually balance your freedom and mine. That's when it actually grows up.

If I lived in Tennessee I would see a freedom that matters to me is the freedom to go about my life without the fear that some gormless pillock might decide to try out his assault rifle down at the shops, or that his son might nick a few beers and have a go for himself when he's out with his mates. I would feel that this was a more important freedom that yours to exercise what you see as a right established in a time utterly different to today.

Your arrogance is a front for being afraid to expose your arguments to real analysis. Doesn't work.

[Royal24s]

It's based upon the freedom of the individual coupled with individual responsibility rather than pre-emptive legislation by an all powerful and all knowing State.
No point in debating the freedoms of man with you because you don't want them. I do, and thanks for working out the limits of my own freedoms, but no thanks - I'd prefer to be responsible for myself and I don't want to join your collective.

I'll remember that, should I ever have one.

So the argument "I wouldn't understand" is the old facile definition of freedom. Of course, if you REALLY want freedom, you would have no laws. I would be free to murder you, for example. Of course, that would impinge on your freedom to be able to live your life safely without threat from me. And that's where the childish freedom argument starts to fail.

In a society we have to actually balance your freedom and mine. That's when it actually grows up.

If I lived in Tennessee I would see a freedom that matters to me is the freedom to go about my life without the fear that some gormless pillock might decide to try out his assault rifle down at the shops, or that his son might nick a few beers and have a go for himself when he's out with his mates. I would feel that this was a more important freedom that yours to exercise what you see as a right established in a time utterly different to today.

Your arrogance is a front for being afraid to expose your arguments to real analysis. Doesn't work.

Oh, come on Hillman! I've spent long hours rationalising this sort of thing with you. All I could achieve now is sore typing fingers. The argument that some freedoms mean an absence of law is plain silly, and we've been there before haven't we?
Since all equations work both ways, we could by that logic say that an absence of law would lead to total freedom, which it wouldn't . Similarly, the need for some laws for the general good of society does not justify ANY law, no matter how tyrannical - sometimes we have to risk some stuff to maintain our own basic freedoms. The alternative is to be perpetual children under the total protection and authority of a parental State.
Bottom line is that you're a redcoat and I'm with Washington. We're never going to agree, but we can agree without being disagreeable so please hold down the arrogance stuff will you?

[Hillman avenger]

It's based upon the freedom of the individual coupled with individual responsibility rather than pre-emptive legislation by an all powerful and all knowing State.
No point in debating the freedoms of man with you because you don't want them. I do, and thanks for working out the limits of my own freedoms, but no thanks - I'd prefer to be responsible for myself and I don't want to join your collective.

I'll remember that, should I ever have one.

So the argument "I wouldn't understand" is the old facile definition of freedom. Of course, if you REALLY want freedom, you would have no laws. I would be free to murder you, for example. Of course, that would impinge on your freedom to be able to live your life safely without threat from me. And that's where the childish freedom argument starts to fail.

In a society we have to actually balance your freedom and mine. That's when it actually grows up.

If I lived in Tennessee I would see a freedom that matters to me is the freedom to go about my life without the fear that some gormless pillock might decide to try out his assault rifle down at the shops, or that his son might nick a few beers and have a go for himself when he's out with his mates. I would feel that this was a more important freedom that yours to exercise what you see as a right established in a time utterly different to today.

Your arrogance is a front for being afraid to expose your arguments to real analysis. Doesn't work.

Oh, come on Hillman! I've spent long hours rationalising this sort of thing with you. All I could achieve now is sore typing fingers. The argument that some freedoms mean an absence of law is plain silly, and we've been there before haven't we?
Since all equations work both ways, we could by that logic say that an absence of law would lead to total freedom, which it wouldn't . Similarly, the need for some laws for the general good of society does not justify ANY law, no matter how tyrannical - sometimes we have to risk some stuff to maintain our own basic freedoms. The alternative is to be perpetual children under the total protection and authority of a parental State.
Bottom line is that you're a redcoat and I'm with Washington. We're never going to agree, but we can agree without being disagreeable so please hold down the arrogance stuff will you?

You are in fact agreeing with me.
No, there are more than 2 alternatives. The third is that we have rational, democratic debate about where we pitch our balance of one freedom against another. Which is how the majority of societies, for most of the time, manage it.

An example. Forty years or so ago when car seat-belts were first introduced, there was no discussion about making their use mandatory. it was assumed that people would be intelligent enough to use them in their own interests. They largely did not.

So then the debate started about making it mandatory. There were serious arguments that requiring seat-belt use infringed the liberty of drivers; countered by the argument that their not wearing them infringed the liberty of the rest of us not to underwrite the hospital costs, insurance premium rise, and dependants' benefit needs that would flow from their decision not to use them.

For ten years or so we made a big effort to encourage voluntary use. But it came nowhere near the great majority, so eventually- and in my mind probably ten years too late- we made it mandatory. Usage is above 80% now and it is one of the greatest factors in the decline of death and serious injury among car-users , even given the rise in car usage.

There are many, many examples. We do not move directly to state directive, even when you could produce a strong argument that you should. I don't expect that to change.

[Royal24s]

Interestingly you hit upon the breaking point in English Law. Since the Magna Carta it had been generally held that you couldn't legislate for someone's own good if they disagreed with what you wanted them to do.
In a free country you can only legislate if the act which you want to outlaw DIRECTLY and seriously effects others detrimentally, ( dont tell me the ambulance driver will get upset or insurance premiums will rise). In Police States, the purpose of the law is to force obedience rather than protect individuals , so there is no such consideration.
Barbara Castle drove a horse and coach through this ancient principle of jurisprudence , with the seat belt law, and in her wake have come endless similar statutes which limit freedom illegitimately .
Justice goes directly down the drain because people will respect a law which they consider to be a fair and reasonable limit to their freedom since they know they cannot expect to trespass against others. On the other hand, they will not respect laws which limit their freedom to do or not do something which only effects them, and which they can quite fairly claim to be their own choice.
Once again, you will find that idea quite foreign and I can predict that you will reject it out of hand.

[Hillman avenger]

Interestingly you hit upon the breaking point in English Law. Since the Magna Carta it had been generally held that you couldn't legislate for someone's own good if they disagreed with what you wanted them to do.
In a free country you can only legislate if the act which you want to outlaw DIRECTLY and seriously effects others detrimentally, ( dont tell me the ambulance driver will get upset or insurance premiums will rise). In Police States, the purpose of the law is to force obedience rather than protect individuals , so there is no such consideration.
Barbara Castle drove a horse and coach through this ancient principle of jurisprudence , with the seat belt law, and in her wake have come endless similar statutes which limit freedom illegitimately .
Justice goes directly down the drain because people will respect a law which they consider to be a fair and reasonable limit to their freedom since they know they cannot expect to trespass against others. On the other hand, they will not respect laws which limit their freedom to do or not do something which only effects them, and which they can quite fairly claim to be their own choice.
Once again, you will find that idea quite foreign and I can predict that you will reject it out of hand.

Dear oh dear.
Compulsory use of seat-belts did not become law until 1981. I reckon that's something like 10 years after Barbara Castle had any ministerial post. Indeed introduced and later ratified under a Tory government.
Your "logic" is all over the place.
Yes, in "police states" the law is the means, or at least pretext, for repression. I'm jolly glad we haven't got one, aren't you?
Can you give us an example of a law which in your world, could be defied, because it only pertains to an individual and has no effect on anyone else? I'm struggling with that, but then I do lack your intellect.
Seat-belts are in fact a good example of a law, in my mind, for the greater good. The "freedom" of an individual to go through his windscreen at 80 mph has been regrettably curtailed because that action has considerable effects on the rest of us, which we do not consider to be reasonable. Try talking to a traffic officer who has retrieved a body thrown from a car across a motorway for a more personal example.
I kind of guessed you'd see the seat-belt law as an intrusion of personal liberty, to be defended at all costs, or to be ignored. Whereas I ( and I think most of us) see it as an intrusion of personal liberty, well worth it for the overall benefit to a civilised society.
You tell us so much about democracy, but don't seem to recognise it in practice. Indeed democracy only seems to exist for you when it delivers the outcomes you prefer; otherwise it's a "police state".

[Royal24s]

Again I've explained democracy to you before , and it's not stand alone. You also need individual rights which cannot be infringed by popular demand. Otherwise it's just 3 wolves and a sheep voting about what's for supper, ass I've told you many times before.
You are right though that you need a certain quota of marbles to understand these things

[Royal24s]

By the way, Barbara Castle did introduce seat belt laws. She managed to get them fitted to all vehicles by law, but it did take longer to criminalise the act of not wearing one. That wasn't for want of trying by the said individual though.

[Royal24s]

Why do you keep telling me about the law when you know it's my job - I don't tell you how to stack trolleys, do I

- alright, I apologise. Uncalled for and twatish on my part, especially after what I said earlier. I meant no harm, but I couldn't resist it. Sorry sorry sorry!

[Hillman avenger]

Again I've explained democracy to you before , and it's not stand alone. You also need individual rights which cannot be infringed by popular demand. Otherwise it's just 3 wolves and a sheep voting about what's for supper, ass I've told you many times before.
You are right though that you need a certain quota of marbles to understand these things

You've "explained democracy before"- how kind.

What are these individual rights? We've established before where possession firearms is concerned- you think it's an unalienable right, whereas I don't. Imprisonment without charge- now there's a tricky one.

We've been hearing what Teresa May wants to do today. Like all Home Secretaries for decades, she has to do her job walking a tightrope between public safety and public rights. It's quite correct she should be challenged, but if she wins, good for her (and for democracy).

You have a very curious view of democracy, don't you?

On and BTW you've forgotten to mention where you get your news from. Apparently the BBC, which 90% of the rest of us use, is polluted. We are all keen to know where to go for more authoritative, not to mention neutral, news.

[Royal24s]

Again I've explained democracy to you before , and it's not stand alone. You also need individual rights which cannot be infringed by popular demand. Otherwise it's just 3 wolves and a sheep voting about what's for supper, ass I've told you many times before.
You are right though that you need a certain quota of marbles to understand these things

You've "explained democracy before"- how kind.

What are these individual rights? We've established before where possession firearms is concerned- you think it's an unalienable right, whereas I don't. Imprisonment without charge- now there's a tricky one.

We've been hearing what Teresa May wants to do today. Like all Home Secretaries for decades, she has to do her job walking a tightrope between public safety and public rights. It's quite correct she should be challenged, but if she wins, good for her (and for democracy).

You have a very curious view of democracy, don't you?

On and BTW you've forgotten to mention where you get your news from. Apparently the BBC, which 90% of the rest of us use, is polluted. We are all keen to know where to go for more authoritative, not to mention neutral, news.

Well, since you ask I've got access to most of the worlds News Agencies and I know a lot of journalists and politicians, so I probably do get better data than you would from the BBC for example. I'm also quite used to filtering information and spotting disinformation and inaccuracies.
None of which means that my interpretation of fact is necessarily better than yours. I know which one I would trust if my life or anyone else's depended upon it, but you have every right to form your own interpretation and also to try to advocate it to the public.
Having said this, I'm still quite mystified about what it's got to do with this thread. I can't see which News Item is in dispute here.
Is this a case of you trying to shift the argument onto something which you feel more comfortable with ?

[Hillman avenger]

You brought it up, not me.

The idea that any news source can be utterly neutral is a myth. As soon as an editor decides what will and won't go out, it has been interfered with. The idea that a politician would be a less distorted source is interesting, especially given your own comments about that profession.

I think the BBC tries very hard to be comprehensive and balanced across its coverage. They were never required to have he said-she said coverage on everything, which would make for dreadful output. Whatever the political views of its staff, it does this seriously and invites genuine feedback which they broadcast. I don't know any other news source which comes close.

You avoid the question of how you access unfiltered information. The truth is, you don't. None of us do.

[Royal24s]

You brought it up, not me.

The idea that any news source can be utterly neutral is a myth. As soon as an editor decides what will and won't go out, it has been interfered with. The idea that a politician would be a less distorted source is interesting, especially given your own comments about that profession.

I think the BBC tries very hard to be comprehensive and balanced across its coverage. They were never required to have he said-she said coverage on everything, which would make for dreadful output. Whatever the political views of its staff, it does this seriously and invites genuine feedback which they broadcast. I don't know any other news source which comes close.

You avoid the question of how you access unfiltered information. The truth is, you don't. None of us do.

Oh I see! I was puzzled because I really didn't bring up news sources or BBC bias, but I read over the posts to check .
No, what I did was to point out that in the USA there is no requirement in law for political balance such as that which applies to the BBC, and I did this to explain why particular stations and presenters there can and do put a one sided case on political issues - I wasn't getting into the rights and wrongs of it or whether the BBC is actually balanced.

As to whether anyone has access to better news sources, well of course they bloody do! Why do you think the BBC or The Times gets hold of stories before you do? That's why they're able to sell it to you.
What happens is that they subscribe to news and wire services who collate stories worldwide and compete to sell them on while they're still fresh. In the process, information circulates within informed groups before anyone prints or reports it, and there is a stage of editing and selecting what is and is not reported for one reason or another.
Now, if you don't know anyone who is privy to information before it gets onto the 6 o'clock News, you really shouldn't assume that the same is true for everyone.

[Royal24s]

As a matter of fact Hillman, did I not demonstrate this to you when I predicted the Tory paedophile scandal of the late 70s and 80s long before it broke ?
Was that a very specific lucky guess do you think?