The war against individual freedoms

The Off-Topic forum for anything non-LDS related, such as sports or politics. Rated PG through PG-13.
Post Reply
_Gadianton
_Emeritus
Posts: 9947
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 5:12 am

The war against individual freedoms

Post by _Gadianton »

According to LaPierre, nobody proposing more gun control is really interested in stopping gun violence, or at least that's a secondary aim, whereas the primary aim is to destroy individual freedoms. What is this guy smoking?

The one thing I wanted to point out is that gun ownership on the whole is drastically disproportional to other freedoms in terms of externalities society puts up with in order to allow gun enthusiasts to be collectors and desert warriors. Times have changed, unfortunately, and kids today for the most part don't have the easy access to outdoor recreation that I did as a kid. BB guns aside, kids can't ride their bikes or skateboards as I did. There's just less room. New properties all over are built on smaller lots and typically in communities with unending lists of rules. I can't paint my house the color I like or pick what plants I want for the front yard, and I have to be extremely careful about how I use power tools in my garage to avoid raising suspicion. It's even risky to bbq outside too often. If it were up to the socialist community planners, people would go to work, drive home and park in the garage, and then watch TV the rest of the evening provided it's not too loud. On weekends, community facilities would be utilized precisely in the way the planners deem they should be utilized and according to their vision of what they think is fun for people and it's a big issue otherwise.

The funny thing is, stuff is cheaper than its ever been, and so people can afford all kinds of fun things like never before, but there's few places to use it all. If you like dirt bikes good luck avoiding a head-on at Sand Mountain. If you like boating, good luck finding a lake without a thousand other boats. Fewer lonely stretches of road to open up that dual 4-barrell you fixed up.

Many planned communities don't allow a kid to use a skateboard on the street, but by God, the constitution guarantees his right to keep 12 AR-15s in his closet. The fact the day of the gun is past paces about a hundred other losses of freedom that really have nothing to do with government, but increased population density and disposable income all around, and the loss of the gun for most people is far less significant than the loss of many other freedoms due to changing times rather than politicians realizing their socialist dreams.
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.

LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
_Kevin Graham
_Emeritus
Posts: 13037
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 6:44 pm

Re: The war against individual freedoms

Post by _Kevin Graham »

Socialist. You keep saying that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
_honorentheos
_Emeritus
Posts: 11104
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 5:17 am

Re: The war against individual freedoms

Post by _honorentheos »

I had to laugh at "socialist community planners". Most HOA's that are the ones enforcing everything from architectural guidelines to keeping skateboarders off HOA-maintained facilities are part of the compromise people pay dues for in order to protect their property values.

It's one product on the market among many. In the Phoenix area a person who wants maximum protection of their home value with minimal risk will easily find a gated community with nosy neighbors and an active HOA policing adherence to their CC&R's. Moving along the spectrum one can find more lax HOAs to neighborhoods with only zoning code enforcement that more or less restricts how close to the street, side and back of the lot any structure can be and how many stories tall. If one wants practically zero regulation there's Black Canyon City or any number of places on the fringe of the major metro development from which I know people who commute in to Phoenix because they want to drive an ATV out of their garage and not have anyone tell them whether or not they can put another room on the back of their house if they feel like it.

To your point, Gad, the marketplace offers a person choices with costs and benefits. But when it comes to so-called gun rights it seems that there is a growing sense that one isn't choosing what one wants out of the available markets, but that society as a whole is being encroached on. The Sandy Hook and Parkland shootings are extreme examples of communities that were the safest of the safe that found they couldn't keep the consequences of other people's freedoms from having negative consequences. Extreme negative consequences. Figuratively, they bought into an HOA with restrictive CC&R's and a security guard at the entrance but they still ended up with a neighbor who parked broken down cars in the front yard and has wild parties that spill out into street brawls every weekend.

Firearm ownership and use isn't talked about in ways that focus on maintaining market options. And that seems largely due to there not being a lot of talk about self-policing among firearm owners interested in maintaining the freedom of an ownership market rather than a one-size-fits-all approach between opposing views. Owners advocates and control advocates probably don't disagree when it comes to a person's right to own a weapon that they accidently shoot themselves with while cleaning or out drunkenly plunking cans with buddies. It's when someone who specifically didn't want to own both ends of the firearm proliferation bargain ends up affected by the negative consequences of proliferation that leads to reduced patience with those who advocate for freedom of ownership.

ETA: It's interesting to think about both examples (guns and homes) in the context of poverty vs. wealth. In both examples, freedom of choice is tied directly to one's ability to buy their way into options. The poor are left out of having the choice of protecting their property and minimizing exposure to violence. Freedom = $$$.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth?
~ Eiji Yoshikawa
_subgenius
_Emeritus
Posts: 13326
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 12:50 pm

Re: The war against individual freedoms

Post by _subgenius »

honorentheos wrote:I had to laugh at "socialist community planners". Most HOA's that are the ones enforcing everything from architectural guidelines to keeping skateboarders off HOA-maintained facilities are part of the compromise people pay dues for in order to protect their property values.

your post seems to be a bit narrow in how HOA and city planners function these days...all days really.

http://www.fostercity.org/departmentsan ... otypes.cfm

Ya see, HOAs derive their authority and power as being subject to regulations and ordinances. And while an HOA is a private entity a planning authority is simply a public manifestation of the same entity...they are, in fact, two faces of the same coin. Many times the HOA is within the larger public entity of RNO....but these are all pesky details.
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty
I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them
what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams
If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent
_honorentheos
_Emeritus
Posts: 11104
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 5:17 am

Re: The war against individual freedoms

Post by _honorentheos »

Nice, architect. I'm sure you meant to point out that in the spectrum of options that are enforced by, say, the City of Foster in California there are going to be a range of restrictions that are defined by any number of factors that isn't a flip of a coin but rather a choice based on where one chooses to build/develop/live.

http://www.codepublishing.com/CA/FosterCity/

The developer who chooses to develop in Foster is going in with eyes open and making cost/benefit choices that are enabled by having a zoning code as much as they are limited by what the code allows and where they allow it.

ETA: The architects I know who love free wheeling lack of constraint tend to be...well, they do more speculating and advocating than they do designing things that get built. But hey, there's always Dubai.

http://www.constructionweekonline.com/a ... ddle-east/
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/28/busin ... dubai.html
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth?
~ Eiji Yoshikawa
_subgenius
_Emeritus
Posts: 13326
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 12:50 pm

Re: The war against individual freedoms

Post by _subgenius »

honorentheos wrote:Nice, architect. I'm sure you meant to point out that in the spectrum of options that are enforced by, say, the City of Foster in California there are going to be a range of restrictions that are defined by any number of factors that isn't a flip of a coin but rather a choice based on where one chooses to build/develop/live.

http://www.codepublishing.com/CA/FosterCity/

The developer who chooses to develop in Foster is going in with eyes open and making cost/benefit choices that are enabled by having a zoning code as much as they are limited by what the code allows and where they allow it.

ETA: The architects I know who love free wheeling lack of constraint tend to be...well, they do more speculating and advocating than they do designing things that get built. But hey, there's always Dubai.

http://www.constructionweekonline.com/a ... ddle-east/
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/28/busin ... dubai.html

Oh, i agree with you...and i am certainly all about demonizing developers (and city planners)....both are perhaps the most dangerous participant in our society due to how broad the influence/effect is of our built environment. A developer is to Architect as Insurance is to Doctor.
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty
I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them
what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams
If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent
_Markk
_Emeritus
Posts: 4745
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 4:04 am

Re: The war against individual freedoms

Post by _Markk »

Glad wrote...According to LaPierre, nobody proposing more gun control is really interested in stopping gun violence, or at least that's a secondary aim, whereas the primary aim is to destroy individual freedoms.


Hi Glad,

I listened to his speech. Some talking points had merit and some not so much...in my opinion.

A good point he made for me, is that we have high security for stores, events, and alike, but there is push back for more and better security at or schools, as we even read in some of the threads here.

A single politician, movie star, businessman, or pro athlete...etc... has more security than most schools?

I have tried to discuss some of the other factors that lead to the violence, as has many like LaPierre , and it is almost impossible to have a conversation.

I guess my question is, when and where can we have this conversation.
Don't take life so seriously in that " sooner or later we are just old men in funny clothes" "Tom 'T-Bone' Wolk"
_honorentheos
_Emeritus
Posts: 11104
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 5:17 am

Re: The war against individual freedoms

Post by _honorentheos »

Markk wrote:
Glad wrote...According to LaPierre, nobody proposing more gun control is really interested in stopping gun violence, or at least that's a secondary aim, whereas the primary aim is to destroy individual freedoms.


Hi Glad,

I listened to his speech. Some talking points had merit and some not so much...in my opinion.

A good point he made for me, is that we have high security for stores, events, and alike, but there is push back for more and better security at or schools, as we even read in some of the threads here.

A single politician, movie star, businessman, or pro athlete...etc... has more security than most schools?

I have tried to discuss some of the other factors that lead to the violence, as has many like LaPierre , and it is almost impossible to have a conversation.

I guess my question is, when and where can we have this conversation.

Are you willing to see your taxes go up to pay for it? Or have a bullet/gun tax?
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth?
~ Eiji Yoshikawa
_Markk
_Emeritus
Posts: 4745
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 4:04 am

Re: The war against individual freedoms

Post by _Markk »

??
Don't take life so seriously in that " sooner or later we are just old men in funny clothes" "Tom 'T-Bone' Wolk"
_Markk
_Emeritus
Posts: 4745
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 4:04 am

Re: The war against individual freedoms

Post by _Markk »

Glad wrote...According to LaPierre, nobody proposing more gun control is really interested in stopping gun violence, or at least that's a secondary aim, whereas the primary aim is to destroy individual freedoms.

Markk wrote:Hi Glad,

I listened to his speech. Some talking points had merit and some not so much...in my opinion.

A good point he made for me, is that we have high security for stores, events, and alike, but there is push back for more and better security at or schools, as we even read in some of the threads here.

A single politician, movie star, businessman, or pro athlete...etc... has more security than most schools?

I have tried to discuss some of the other factors that lead to the violence, as has many like LaPierre , and it is almost impossible to have a conversation.
I guess my question is, when and where can we have this conversation.


honorentheos wrote:Are you willing to see your taxes go up to pay for it? Or have a bullet/gun tax?


You missed my question...when can there be a honest conversation as to what cause folks to do this more than ever before.

To answer your question...I do not want higher taxes, but in this case yes I would be okay with them.

Some of the questions are violence in our movies and TV...Social Media and how it might effect the issue. Family values and respect for authority? These all have an effect on why people do these things, guns and other weapons are tools they carry it out with.

Should we go back to tight regulations on TV and Cinema?

I certainly don't have the answer, but I believe these are worthy conversation that many folks refuse to engage in, and in context with the OP, one of LaPierre's points.
Don't take life so seriously in that " sooner or later we are just old men in funny clothes" "Tom 'T-Bone' Wolk"
Post Reply