-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
POLL: You opinions on a few "rights"
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
jackschmittusa
Diamond Member
#1 with comments
But first, I want to mention that the assualt weapons ban is not about assualt rifles at all. Assualt rifles are by military definition, full auto, or limited auto in some cases (burst fire). The assualt weapons ban had virtualy no effect on such weapons, and they are covered under other, older laws. To show how stupid the law was, here's an example. The stock Ruger Mini-14 is perfectly legal. You could make it illegal by adding any of the following: 20-30 round magizine, flash hider, bayonet lug, folding stock, bi-pod, etc.. There might be some small room for argument about the magazine size, but any reasonably cordinated person can change 10 mags quite rapidly, and for those already committed to breaking the law, larger mags are available anyway. The others do not represent common uses by American criminals. Flash hiders are only useful for ranged shooting, far enough away so that acustic location finding is inaccurate. Drug dealers useing bayonets on their rifles for hand to hand combat? LMAO A folding stock is less useful for concealment than simply cutting the stock off. It is bulkier and more apt to catch on clothing when removing from a concealed position. A bi-pod is used for long range accuracy while firing from a prone position. Why do ordinary people want these things? In some cases it is to make a badass LOOKING gun. Same capabilities as the stock model. People do the same type of things to cars and trucks and other hobbies. People mention the AK-47 all the time when talking about the law, but they are really talking about semi-auto knockoffs of the real thing which are actually inferior in stopping power and accuracy to a good deer rifle like a Remington 30-06 semi-auto. The hype surrounding the law was assinine and meant to be consumed by those ignorant of firearms. They even used big, scary numbers quoting "theoretical rate of fire" to make them sound like incredable killing machines. They ignored actual rates of fire because the real world numbers were too small to get the desired reaction. Big differences in theoretical rates of fire, say between 400 and 600 rounds per minute, might actuall translate to ONE more round per minute in actual fire with a semi-auto, magizine fed rifle.
Non-addictive drugs should be taxed and regulated along with quality assurance (like I think prostitution should be BTW). Addictive drugs should still be by prescription so as to assure monitoring.
I know I am not qualified to figure out and access all of the posibilities that might arise in all possible abortion senarios, so I would still leave that to a woman and her doctor to figure out. I don't think that you can write something equivalent to the "Wisdom of Soloman" into a law.
But first, I want to mention that the assualt weapons ban is not about assualt rifles at all. Assualt rifles are by military definition, full auto, or limited auto in some cases (burst fire). The assualt weapons ban had virtualy no effect on such weapons, and they are covered under other, older laws. To show how stupid the law was, here's an example. The stock Ruger Mini-14 is perfectly legal. You could make it illegal by adding any of the following: 20-30 round magizine, flash hider, bayonet lug, folding stock, bi-pod, etc.. There might be some small room for argument about the magazine size, but any reasonably cordinated person can change 10 mags quite rapidly, and for those already committed to breaking the law, larger mags are available anyway. The others do not represent common uses by American criminals. Flash hiders are only useful for ranged shooting, far enough away so that acustic location finding is inaccurate. Drug dealers useing bayonets on their rifles for hand to hand combat? LMAO A folding stock is less useful for concealment than simply cutting the stock off. It is bulkier and more apt to catch on clothing when removing from a concealed position. A bi-pod is used for long range accuracy while firing from a prone position. Why do ordinary people want these things? In some cases it is to make a badass LOOKING gun. Same capabilities as the stock model. People do the same type of things to cars and trucks and other hobbies. People mention the AK-47 all the time when talking about the law, but they are really talking about semi-auto knockoffs of the real thing which are actually inferior in stopping power and accuracy to a good deer rifle like a Remington 30-06 semi-auto. The hype surrounding the law was assinine and meant to be consumed by those ignorant of firearms. They even used big, scary numbers quoting "theoretical rate of fire" to make them sound like incredable killing machines. They ignored actual rates of fire because the real world numbers were too small to get the desired reaction. Big differences in theoretical rates of fire, say between 400 and 600 rounds per minute, might actuall translate to ONE more round per minute in actual fire with a semi-auto, magizine fed rifle.
Non-addictive drugs should be taxed and regulated along with quality assurance (like I think prostitution should be BTW). Addictive drugs should still be by prescription so as to assure monitoring.
I know I am not qualified to figure out and access all of the posibilities that might arise in all possible abortion senarios, so I would still leave that to a woman and her doctor to figure out. I don't think that you can write something equivalent to the "Wisdom of Soloman" into a law.
Don Vito Corleone
Elite
They really haven't meaningfully changed the UCMJ or the military justice system. They are rolling JAGs into the tribunals for the Gitmo detainees, and I have VERY strong objections to the way those detainees are being treated, but this is totally separate from the way we conduct military justice.
I was a Bush supporter following 9/11, and initially thought the War on Terror was a sound concept. I actually posted a lot of things supportive of President Bush in 2002. I consider OIF the biggest military and foreign-policy blunder in US history, and I've become increasingly disenchanted with what I see as a radical agenda driven by the religious right, and the largest amounts of deficit spending in history. I have already cast my vote for Sen Kerry.
phantom309
Platinum Member
All legal, but I'm a libertarian at heart. I don't think that recreational drugs will ever be legalized in the US, though. Too easy to build an emotional argument against it. And honestly, these are all mostly emotional issues.
I'm an avid shooter, and I'd like to think my guns can help me protect my family against attackers - but short of being strapped 24/7 there are only a few potential scenarios where that would be true. I'm not going to pull a gun to protect my car stereo no matter what the law enables me to do. But like the other issues, to me it's better to have the choice than not.
The truth is that these issues don't really affect America as a whole very much - but a lot of people are very passionate about them. Politicians on both sides wheel them out at election time to mobilize voters; then they go straight to the back burner again.
I'm an avid shooter, and I'd like to think my guns can help me protect my family against attackers - but short of being strapped 24/7 there are only a few potential scenarios where that would be true. I'm not going to pull a gun to protect my car stereo no matter what the law enables me to do. But like the other issues, to me it's better to have the choice than not.
The truth is that these issues don't really affect America as a whole very much - but a lot of people are very passionate about them. Politicians on both sides wheel them out at election time to mobilize voters; then they go straight to the back burner again.
Vic
Elite Member
LOL, you're an idiot. Laws don't keep criminals from owning guns. A guy robbing a bank or "some whacked out crank snorting freak walks in the Burger King and wastes hundreds of innocent by standers" (an incident which has never happened) isn't concerned that the rifle in in hand might not be legal. He's already breaking much more serious laws.
lordtyranus
Banned
Abortions: Legal but not paid for by taxpayers.
Firearms: Legal
Drugs: Illegal
Firearms: Legal
Drugs: Illegal
3chordcharlie
Diamond Member
nice post :beer:
3chordcharlie
Diamond Member
I disagree - it may be that drugs should be legal, but there are definitely not millions imprisoned for drug crimes who actually needed the drugs. Therefore they were free to lobby, campaign, and vote in favour of looser drug laws, but instead chose to break the existing laws, all the while knowing the possible outcome of doing so.
I highly doubt that there are millions imprisoned simply for owning an illegal firearm, too.
3chordcharlie
Diamond Member
I don't think drugs should necessarily be illegal - and I'm pretty open about at least listening to people who claim drugs like Marijuana help with 'chronic' 🙂)) medical conditions. But it's hard to make a claim that you need drugs like you need food.
I think alcohol and marijuana are pretty similar in terms of health and social consequences, so it's particularly hypocritical that one is legal and the other not. When it comes to true narcotics, the social damage coupled with addictive properties make me think 'free market' is not the way to go here.
Vic
Elite Member
I still don't understand what need has to do with it. It a person wants something, and it harm no one else, I don't see why they should not be allowed to have it.
In terms of health and social consequences though, alcohol and marijuana are no where near similar. In fact, not even true narcotics come any where close to the damage that alcohol causes. 20,000 people die every year from drunk driving, and another 100,000 die from the effects of alcoholism and abuse. Roughly half of all crimes are committed while under the influence of alcohol, and even more than half for such serious crimes like rape and murder.
In comparison, roughly 10,000 people die each from abusing illegal drugs in the US. Some 90% of those are from heroin overdoses, usually caused by a "hot dose", a problem that could be easily corrected under legalization and regulation. There has not been one recorded case in all of human history of someone dying from marijuana abuse.
edit: and before you think to argue that it is legalization of alcohol that makes it cause all those problems, be aware that those issues worsened by many orders of magnitude during the Prohibition.
3chordcharlie
Diamond Member
Because in a society with laws, you don't have carte blanche to ignore them without consequence - if you think they are ill-conceived, you should be free to campaign against them, but the only real excuse for simply breaking them is some form of compelling need.
You can't compare statistics, because alcohol has a much larger user base, just by virtue of being legal and readily available. While it's true that you cannot overdose on THC, you can certainly end up dead while dricing, or participating in retarded stunts, or any of the other things that drunk and high people occasionally like to do.
bamacre
Lifer
I voted "cop out" just because you lumped all "drugs" into the same category.
Look, I don't want to snort sh$t up my nose, inject crap straight into my bloodstream, or smoke any kind of crystal meth or crack, but I really would love to walk into my local grocers produce department and weigh up a pound of pot in a big plastic baggie.
"Oh, it's right next to the apples, sir, across from the onions."
Look, I don't want to snort sh$t up my nose, inject crap straight into my bloodstream, or smoke any kind of crystal meth or crack, but I really would love to walk into my local grocers produce department and weigh up a pound of pot in a big plastic baggie.
"Oh, it's right next to the apples, sir, across from the onions."
Vic
Elite Member
I already agreed with you that the law, while in existence, should be obeyed. Is that your whole argument? People are trying to change it, and have been trying for a long time.
And you must have missed my edit. Alcohol consumption increased to record levels during Prohibition, as did crime and deaths. Being legal is not the whole story, not by a long shot.
The British government did a controversial study on driving while intoxicated a couple of years back, and did not get the answers they were looking for. They discovered that most people drive better while under the influence of marijuana than they did while sober. They cited the fact that marijuana users become somewhat paranoid and self-conscious, i.e. that unlike alcohol users the marijuana users are actually aware that they are impaired, and thus slow down and drive more carefully. I do not support driving under the influence of any drug, but it is an interesting study.
Thegonagle
Diamond Member
Surprise, surprise! The conservative perception that a majority of liberals think that firearrms should be illegal breaks down:
Using a different poll recently posted here, "Liberal or Conservative?" over 53% of the posters identified themselves as "Liberal" (33 out of 29), but nearly 89% of posters support the right to bear arms. (88 out of 99; "cop-outs" not counted.)
I'm no statitician, but I'd say that the majority of "Liberals" do support gun ownership rights.
Using a different poll recently posted here, "Liberal or Conservative?" over 53% of the posters identified themselves as "Liberal" (33 out of 29), but nearly 89% of posters support the right to bear arms. (88 out of 99; "cop-outs" not counted.)
I'm no statitician, but I'd say that the majority of "Liberals" do support gun ownership rights.
Abortion: Not a right in the constitution. States/federal can legislate as fit. Personally see it as immoral, have never been a part of one and wouldn't likely ever be. Would not vote to make it illegal except in later-term. Support parental consent legislation.
Using drugs: Not a right in the constitution. Support legalization and medicalization of addictive drugs (crack, heroin, barbituates). Support legalization and heavy restriction/taxation on non-addictive (pot). Support keeping illegal but decriminalizing "stupid" drugs (lsd, pcp, shrooms).
Owning firearms: A right in the constitution. Support regulations, waiting periods, eliminating loopholes. Do not support city/county bans on all firearms (i.e. Chicago) - those are unconstitutional.
I'm not sure which one that is - I guess I vote for all 3 legal 😀
Using drugs: Not a right in the constitution. Support legalization and medicalization of addictive drugs (crack, heroin, barbituates). Support legalization and heavy restriction/taxation on non-addictive (pot). Support keeping illegal but decriminalizing "stupid" drugs (lsd, pcp, shrooms).
Owning firearms: A right in the constitution. Support regulations, waiting periods, eliminating loopholes. Do not support city/county bans on all firearms (i.e. Chicago) - those are unconstitutional.
I'm not sure which one that is - I guess I vote for all 3 legal 😀
bamacre
Lifer
You just lumped all "drunk and high people" into one category. That's quite a stereotype.
Not all of us potheads wear baggy jeans, listen to R&B, wear our hats sideways, and work at McDonalds. In my experience, people who speak the way you do, have no idea just how many people enjoy toking.
This here 28-year-old pothead has a 4-yr degree in Accounting. I've been employed as a programmer/database guy/supervisor in the the marketing research biz for almost 10 years now.
Actually, I really only prefer to toke when alone, except for a few rare situations. Doing stupid "stunts" isn't on my agenda, whether or not I am toking. I don't like driving high, for multiple reasons, but can, and it's not hard, although I would never recommend it.
The major concern I have about toking is where my money for it ends up. My desire to have MJ legalized is based mostly on getting rid of the thugs and criminals who sell it. With it illegal, we give them another product to sell. We let go of billions of dollars in tax revenues, money that could, and should, be used for education. IMO, and in my experience, it is easier for children to obtain marijuana while it is illegal. Their dealers don't ask for an ID, just $10 to $25. That's all they care about.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
