Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"?

Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

mistoferin -> Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? (4/23/2007 10:19:32 AM)
Reading the current threads on the boards has me wondering.... There are currently several threads concerning bans. Some of the same folks who support banning one thing are opposed to the banning of another. So I am wondering, do you feel that bans in general are wrong and you feel that competent and responsible adults should be allowed to make their own decisions or does it (for you) depend on what is being banned? For example....the banning of books vs. the banning of guns. Now some may say that the two are entirely different....but are they? Both can have positive or negative impact depending upon the hands in which they are found.

juliaoceania -> RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? (4/23/2007 10:22:32 AM)
Unless it is child porn, I am against bans period, end of story. I do think there are appropriate places for certain materials (no porn mags in a window for example), but I am against censorship I am not for banning guns, but not for the same reasons.

HutchGarahl -> RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? (4/23/2007 10:23:36 AM)
While I would agree that some people should be banned from guns...IE: hard core criminials...insane people, wait...I resemble that...umm....drug addicts... I would never agree the people should be banned from books. There's a whole new world in every book that's read and some can even find more that one world in them using imagination. Unless of course the person ate the books cause then it would serve no real purpose but a sore tummy.

Viridana -> RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? (4/23/2007 10:29:32 AM)
I don't go for the "ban everything" state of mind. But I do however feel that certain things should have a limited access i.e. guns. Some people are definately not qualified to handle such a piece and therefore shouldn't be allowed to have one unless they meet certain qualifications. I say this since guns+ incompetent people = potential hazard. But banning them all together, no. I do feel the cases of books vs. guns are not the same even though in theory it is the same. Hazardous books in the hands of incompetent people most certainly results in something negative but not as directly and hazardly negative as a gun in the hand of an idiot. Good thread. I'm looking forward to reading more responses.

mistoferin -> RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? (4/23/2007 10:33:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Viridana I don't go for the "ban everything" state of mind. But I do however feel that certain things should have a limited access i.e. guns. Some people are definately not qualified to handle such a piece and therefore shouldn't be allowed to have one unless they meet certain qualifications. I say this since guns+ incompetent people = potential hazard. But banning them all together, no. I do feel the cases of books vs. guns are not the same even though in theory it is the same. Hazardous books in the hands of incompetent people most certainly results in something negative but not as directly and hazardly negative as a gun in the hand of an idiot. Good thread. I'm looking forward to reading more responses. Well I did say competent, responsible adults. In the case of books vs. guns....what if the book was a "how to" book on bomb making.....could that not be just as dangerous in the hands of an "idiot" as you said, or someone with ill intent?

Sinergy -> RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? (4/23/2007 10:37:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mistoferin In the case of books vs. guns....what if the book was a "how to" book on bomb making.....could that not be just as dangerous in the hands of an "idiot" as you said, or someone with ill intent? I propose a 10 day waiting period for all reading materials. This would help get all of our children and couch potatos back to watching television like they are supposed to be doing. We can call it the Brady Bunch Bill. Sinergy edited to be more clear about who should be watching TV.

Viridana -> RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? (4/23/2007 10:47:59 AM)
quote: Well I did say competent, responsible adults. In the case of books vs. guns....what if the book was a "how to" book on bomb making.....could that not be just as dangerous in the hands of an "idiot" as you said, or someone with ill intent? Good points. However the criteria for "competent, responsible adults" is somewhat floating in air and I think there should be higher rather than lower qualifications to owning a gun. If a person is stable, mature and responsible then meeting those qualifications shouldn't be a problem. I am somewhat mixed in my opinion about banning books or limiting acess to them. I know that may sound hipocritical according to my stance on guns, but I don't see the same power in the book as the gun in the hand of an unstable person, even if the material is bomb making. One of the reasons that contribute to my mixed opinion is that nowadays people who have ill agendas mostly don't use books to do so but texts and articles written online. If the books are to be banned, than what about the internet blogs, articles and such of the same material? How can flow of information like that be prohibited or kept under control in vast cyberspace?

Celeste43 -> RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? (4/23/2007 11:31:47 AM)
Being cochair of a school book fair, I am against banning books. Indeed my eldest's first high school lit class reading list came straight off the banned books list. A definitely eclectic selection. In NY State, people who have been treated for psychological disorders may not get a gun permit. Certainly a few people who have been hunting responsibly for years found themselves unable to get a permit the hunting season following 9/11 after responsibly seeking treatment for trauma. In this area, no one went unaffected, everyone knew or knew of someone who had perished. Towns nearby that had high police and firefighter populations were devastated. But to give a known stalker with severe problems a gun was irresponsible as is the ability to buy ammo on EBay which is what the Virginia Tech shooter did.

Pulpsmack -> RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? (4/23/2007 12:02:22 PM)
I'd at least like to believe that I am relatively consistent with my stance. I believe in our Constitution and feel these rights must be protected above all else. In the absence of this federal protection I believe that there must at least be a compelling reason to limit any freedom. I find merit in the protection of information, even dangerous information. quote: Celeste43 But to give a known stalker with severe problems a gun was irresponsible as is the ability to buy ammo on EBay which is what the Virginia Tech shooter did. There was nothing irresponsible about the firearms dealer who sold that maniac those guns. He did his job properly, he followed the law, and to heap any more shit upon him than his own heart has done already, is unconscionable in my opinion. I imagine there are plenty of assholes who have called his store and harrassed him to death already (other than the unscrupulous media) for doing nothing more than observing procedures mandated by federal law. Compare that to the individual who sold Matthew Broderick the booze he drank before killing the family when he got behind the wheel, and I wonder why alcohol vendors and bartenders live under the protected double standard, particularly when they knowingly serve intoxicated patrons. I can only conclude that most of these hypocrites who remain silent with respect to these "irresponsible" individuals abhor guns but enjoy alcohol, and are willing to turn a blind eye to such matters when it serves the interests of their own lifestlye. Moreover, no ammunition was sold on ebay. It was the magazines that he bought there (the detachable boxes that house the ammo in a handgun) and those were legal as well. Ebay only sells the nonhazardous parts relating to firearms, and thanks to more ignorance, I doubt this will continue much longer.

Termyn8or -> RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? (4/23/2007 12:50:10 PM)
Get guns out of the picture here please. They are the most important thing. If you can ban them for one you can ban them for everybody. Forget it. The right way to do it is we take a couple of dead bodies in the toll, but shoot the shooter. He will never do it again. Yes, crazy people, give them guns, but give everybody guns. Give pilots guns, as well as the passengers. I could see it now, pilot comes out "OK we are all agreed that this plane is not going to Cuba right ?". In a McD's someone opens up and kills like ten people, one guy notices he is putting in a new clip and blows his head off. Psychopaths walk into a classroom at Combine or VA tech, kill a couple of people, but the teacher ior one of the students pulls out a sidearm and blows the fuckhead away, before he kills the next 20 people. And book have been banned. It is illegal to posses the Protocols in some parts of the world. Getting stopped in a pickup truck with a copy of The Turner Diaries can get you in alot of hot water. Actually having a copy of our Constitution is frowned upon. Fuck them, I do what I want and I posess what I want. Be it drugs, weapons, whatever. I have some of the most scathing literature, three versions of the anarchist's cookbook, which I consider pretty mundane actually. I already know more than what is contained in the book. T

darkinshadows -> RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? (4/23/2007 1:05:59 PM)
quote: do you feel that bans in general are wrong and you feel that competent and responsible adults should be allowed to make their own decisions or does it (for you) depend on what is being banned? I believe bans are wrong, no matter how much I may disagree about a certain object, place or thing. So no - I am not selective. Peace and Rapture

darkinshadows -> RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? (4/23/2007 1:08:01 PM)
quote: Yes, crazy people, give them guns, but give everybody guns. Give pilots guns, as well as the passengers. I could see it now, pilot comes out "OK we are all agreed that this plane is not going to Cuba right ?". That would be no different to people who want to take away the freedom of owning a gun, only in reverse. People should not be forced to have or do anything. Peace and Rapture

sub4hire -> RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? (4/23/2007 1:50:40 PM)
I don't feel there should be a ban on much of anything. As Julia stated though child porn..it hurts those who cannot fight back. So there probably should be a ban. As far as smoking, drinking..etc. Let people kill themselves slowly if they want to. Makes for a less crowded universe for me. I'll stand up and fight for them even though I don't do what they do.

meatcleaver -> RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? (4/23/2007 3:03:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mistoferin Reading the current threads on the boards has me wondering.... There are currently several threads concerning bans. Some of the same folks who support banning one thing are opposed to the banning of another. So I am wondering, do you feel that bans in general are wrong and you feel that competent and responsible adults should be allowed to make their own decisions or does it (for you) depend on what is being banned? For example....the banning of books vs. the banning of guns. Now some may say that the two are entirely different....but are they? Both can have positive or negative impact depending upon the hands in which they are found. Books don't have a negative impact unless you hurl them at someone's head.

meatcleaver -> RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? (4/23/2007 3:06:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sub4hire As far as smoking, drinking..etc. Let people kill themselves slowly if they want to. Makes for a less crowded universe for me. Everyone who breaths is dying a slow death. As Clememnt Freud commented on people who don't smoke and drink and take part in the vices of life. 'If you don't drink and smoke, you don't live longer, you just feel like you live longer

GoddessDustyGold -> RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? (4/23/2007 3:17:43 PM)
Lafffing It's funny Erin...The same thought popped into My head when the "book banning" thread popped up! I am not selective. I believe in and support all legal rights, even if I don't agree. I am even in favor of a few now illegal things that have been legislated out of our peronsal control and discretion. I also think that there are reasonable (and sometimes unreasonable) limitations put into place. Such as where certain pornography can be advertised or displayed, where smokers are allowed to light up, etc. Damn! And I am one of those terrible smokers, too! Waiting to see if some of the rabid anti--gun folks are going to come on here and try to insist that this is a completely different scenario.

mistoferin -> RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? (4/23/2007 3:31:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GoddessDustyGold Waiting to see if some of the rabid anti--gun folks are going to come on here and try to insist that this is a completely different scenario. The real question is....would they view it as hypocrisy?

missturbation -> RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? (4/23/2007 3:36:16 PM)
I'm not sure where i stand on the issue of bans exactly. I do know that some people take more pleasure out of doing something that is banned than something that is not. To use one of the examples given which is books, i originally began reading the marquis de sades work because he had been banned and was contoversial. I wanted to know what all the kerfuffle was about. Would i have read them if he did not have a reputation? Probably not. Have they done me any harm reading them? Definately not. It seems that the marquis books should never have been banned but i can understand to a certain degree with the times they were written in why they were. Guns, well to me a lot more dangerous than a book. Some of the fascination with carrying them for those who are not legally allowed to must be the fact they are not supposed to. The pleasure we all have at some time felt from doing something we shouldnt.

GoddessDustyGold -> RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? (4/23/2007 10:53:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mistoferin quote: ORIGINAL: GoddessDustyGold Waiting to see if some of the rabid anti--gun folks are going to come on here and try to insist that this is a completely different scenario. The real question is....would they view it as hypocrisy? Here's My guess Smile If they actually posted, I don't think they would. The silence is deafening, though, isn't it? Avoidance! I take that to mean that many are keeping quiet since they realize it would be hypocritical. Those that would try to defend the "okay to make guns go away because I don't like them, but don't touch My books, and I don't care how much you don't like them or feel they send dangerous messages, it is my right to read whatever I feel like reading and make my own choices" argument would not see the similarity.

pollux -> RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? (4/23/2007 11:02:15 PM)
I think all bans should be banned. Except that, if all bans were banned, even the ban on all the other bans would be banned. So I guess that's out.

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875