Is It Time To Lower The Drinking Age?

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' date='25 April 2010 - 12:32 AM' timestamp='1272173559' post='2099624']
how long do you have to have a conversation with someone before stating they are a fool becomes a statement of fact and not a personal attack?


hypothetically of course.


[/quote]
Let me know when you've figured it out. Inquiring minds want to know.

[havok579257]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='25 April 2010 - 01:10 AM' timestamp='1272172251' post='2099616']
I think it would get even worse in the long term. Criminals would get better and better at importing black market guns from third world countries or maybe places like Russia and China, and they'd get better and better at hiding them during and after crimes. Then we're still left with criminals with guns, and citizens with one less efficient way to protect themselves from criminals with guns.

Basically you'd have to fight a war against criminals with guns. Guess what that turns into? Tyranny.

Government policy against illegal drugs today is mostly reactionary. I guess they catch some in the smuggling, but the fact is that the drugs still get through. If the government were to go to greater lengths to get rid of drugs, if they government wanted to be more efficient, they'd have to encroach more and more into private lives. They're not now, and look at how the war on drugs is doing. It's a joke. Drugs are easy to get. That's just common knowledge. It's because (so far) the government hasn't decided to stamp it out completely. So far they've more or less stuck to less invasive, less tyrannical, less efficient reactionary policies.
[/quote]


the reason the war on drugs doesn't work is because of the pathetic excuse they call penalties. unless your talking cartel style drugs, people get off with prohibation all the time. drug enforcement in this country is a joke. increase jail time and you decrease the drug. if there is a strong enough deterent, then the crime rates will drop.

although this country has a history of going light on criminal. i won't even get into how a rapist or child molester can get off in less than 5 years when they should be locked up for at least 25 to life.

like i have said from the earlier, unless there are harsh penatlies for gun ownership, then this idea will never would never work. if there is harsh punishment for this, then it can work. criminals can;t commit crimes of they are all in jail for numerous years.

[IgnatiusofLoyola]

I couldn't sleep, so rather than toss and turn, I thought I'd get up and log into Phatmass.

I thought this thread was about whether it was time to lower the drinking age. When did it turn into a discussion of gun control in the U.S.?

Canada has a strong nationwide gun control policy that appears to work fairly well.

The U.S. is a different matter. Hypothetical discussions about gun control in the U.S. always have to take into account one big difference between the two countries--The U.S. constitution gives citizens the right to bear arms.

That provision can and has been interpreted many ways, and will continue to be so. And, changing the U.S. constitution is possible, but very difficult.

I'm not about to begin to enter this debate. If you guys think this is a fun way to spend Sat. night, at least no one is doing anything illegal. There are no laws to stop you going round and round and round and getting nowhere, except the law of common sense. This discussion makes me dizzy. [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/blink.gif[/img]

Edited April 25, 2010 by IgnatiusofLoyola

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='havok579257' date='25 April 2010 - 12:46 AM' timestamp='1272174395' post='2099631']
the reason the war on drugs doesn't work is because of the pathetic excuse they call penalties. unless your talking cartel style drugs, people get off with prohibation all the time. drug enforcement in this country is a joke. increase jail time and you decrease the drug. if there is a strong enough deterent, then the crime rates will drop.

although this country has a history of going light on criminal. i won't even get into how a rapist or child molester can get off in less than 5 years when they should be locked up for at least 25 to life.

like i have said from the earlier, unless there are harsh penatlies for gun ownership, then this idea will never would never work. if there is harsh punishment for this, then it can work. criminals can;t commit crimes of they are all in jail for numerous years.
[/quote]
Wow, so is it a nanny state or a police state you want? What about the inevitable times that an otherwise law abiding citizen is caught with a firearm in his house? Ten years in prison, just for exercising his right to self defense?
Besides that, your jail system is already overcrowded, partially because of the war on drugs. You're going to have to ramp up spending for the penal system enormously. So we're looking at huge tax increases, combined with declining civil liberties, increasing organized crime and an ever more pervasive police force. Pretty slippery slope you're looking at there.

Still further, why stop with guns? Why not ban martial arts weapons like nunchuku, kubotan, bō, jō, swords, long knives, shillelaghs, the list goes on and on and on. The only difference between these and firearms is efficiency. They've got no purpose other than for fighting. If you ban guns you've got no logical reason to leave martial arts weapons legal.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='IgnatiusofLoyola' date='25 April 2010 - 12:52 AM' timestamp='1272174730' post='2099633']
I couldn't sleep, so rather than toss and turn, I thought I'd get up and log into Phatmass.

I thought this thread was about whether it was time to lower the drinking age. When did it turn into a discussion of gun control in the U.S.?

Canada has a strong nationwide gun control policy that appears to work very well.

The U.S. is a different matter. Hypothetical discussions about gun control in the U.S. always have to take into account one big difference between the two countries--The U.S. constitution gives citizens the right to bear arms.

That provision can and has been interpreted many ways, and will continue to be so. And, changing the U.S. constitution is possible, but very difficult.

I'm not about to begin to enter this debate. If you guys think this is a fun way to spend Sat. night, at least none of you is doing anything illegal. There are no laws to stop you going round and round and round, except the law of common sense. The discussion makes ME dizzy. Oy.
[/quote]
Lol, I hate to break it to you, but the laws in Canada don't work well at all. Criminals have guns, unless they live in a city that's too poor to get black market guns, like Saskatoon, in which case they just knife each other. Calgary used to be the same way until the Asian triads et. al. became more active. Now all the gangs have guns. Lots of guns. Trouble is, people who aren't in gangs, or who aren't criminals, don't have guns. Or if they do, legally they can only take them from their house to the shooting range, and heaven forfend if you're caught taking them anywhere else, because the tactical team will be on you before you can say "civil liberties".

It is funny how this turned from drinking to guns though, isn't it? I guess they're pretty similar concepts, except you can't really use alcohol for self-defense. Sorta defeats the purpose. Unless you're throwing it in someone's eyes.

[havok579257]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='25 April 2010 - 01:54 AM' timestamp='1272174848' post='2099634']
Wow, so is it a nanny state or a police state you want? What about the inevitable times that an otherwise law abiding citizen is caught with a firearm in his house? Ten years in prison, just for exercising his right to self defense?
Besides that, your jail system is already overcrowded, partially because of the war on drugs. You're going to have to ramp up spending for the penal system enormously. So we're looking at huge tax increases, combined with declining civil liberties, increasing organized crime and an ever more pervasive police force. Pretty slippery slope you're looking at there.

Still further, why stop with guns? Why not ban martial arts weapons like nunchuku, kubotan, bō, jō, swords, long knives, shillelaghs, the list goes on and on and on. The only difference between these and firearms is efficiency. They've got no purpose other than for fighting. If you ban guns you've got no logical reason to leave martial arts weapons legal.
[/quote]


enforcing strict laws on appropriote crimes is not a police state. is it wrong for me to want a rapist or child molester locked up for 25 years? is that to much of a police state? are the current laws better which let them out as soon as a year in some cases? if your a criminal, then you should go to jail and do your time.

a person is not a law abiding citizen if he chooses to break the law. if guns are illegal and he chooses to own a gun then he is actively choosing to break the law. same with drugs or anything else that is illegal. i would have no sympathy for a person who actively chooses to break the law. he knows what the law is. yet he choses to break it. if he doesn't want to follow those laws either suffer the consequences or move somewhere else. why do you have so much sympathy for someone who would be choosing to break the law?

so now with strciter laws on gun control crime will INCREASE. ok, now your going overboard. yes, it would increase the penal system and taxes would go up for that. but rarely do people (except the extreme liberals) complain about increasing taxes for the public saftey. i doubt the vast majority would complain if theire taxes were raised to put more cops on the street and better enforce crimes. unless you honestly think people would rather have less taxes and less public saftey. one of the few things people will complain about is increased taxes to better protect the citizens of the country.

taking away guns does not take away civil liberties if its to protect its citizens.

and here you go again trying to twist words to fit into my mouth to try and better your argument. heck, according to your train of thought i think rocks should be illegal because you can kill someone with one. you've gone off on the deep end and this is becoming a joke. we are talking about guns here. unless your honestly going to tell me kncucks kill as many people a year as guns. is that what your trying to say? let's stay on topic here.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='havok579257' date='25 April 2010 - 01:07 AM' timestamp='1272175659' post='2099640']
enforcing strict laws on appropriote crimes is not a police state. is it wrong for me to want a rapist or child molester locked up for 25 years? is that to much of a police state? are the current laws better which let them out as soon as a year in some cases? if your a criminal, then you should go to jail and do your time.

a person is not a law abiding citizen if he chooses to break the law. if guns are illegal and he chooses to own a gun then he is actively choosing to break the law. same with drugs or anything else that is illegal. i would have no sympathy for a person who actively chooses to break the law. he knows what the law is. yet he choses to break it. if he doesn't want to follow those laws either suffer the consequences or move somewhere else. why do you have so much sympathy for someone who would be choosing to break the law?

so now with strciter laws on gun control crime will INCREASE. ok, now your going overboard. yes, it would increase the penal system and taxes would go up for that. but rarely do people (except the extreme liberals) complain about increasing taxes for the public saftey. i doubt the vast majority would complain if theire taxes were raised to put more cops on the street and better enforce crimes. unless you honestly think people would rather have less taxes and less public saftey. one of the few things people will complain about is increased taxes to better protect the citizens of the country.

taking away guns does not take away civil liberties if its to protect its citizens.

and here you go again trying to twist words to fit into my mouth to try and better your argument. heck, according to your train of thought i think rocks should be illegal because you can kill someone with one. you've gone off on the deep end and this is becoming a joke. we are talking about guns here. unless your honestly going to tell me kncucks kill as many people a year as guns. is that what your trying to say? let's stay on topic here.
[/quote]
Oh dear Lord, patience.........

I can't respond to this tonight. There's just too many fallacies, straw men, and poor debating skills here. Hopefully I'll be up for it sometime tomorrow.

Of course anyone is welcome, in the meantime, to start picking it apart. It won't be hard, I promise. I'll even give you +1s for your effort.

[IgnatiusofLoyola]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='25 April 2010 - 01:57 AM' timestamp='1272175033' post='2099636']
Lol, I hate to break it to you, but the laws in Canada don't work well at all. [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/P.gif[/img] Criminals have guns, unless they live in a city that's too poor to get black market guns, like Saskatoon, in which case they just knife each other. Calgary used to be the same way until the Asian triads et. al. became more active. Now all the gangs have guns. Lots of guns. Trouble is, people who aren't in gangs, or who aren't criminals, don't have guns. Or if they do, legally they can only take them from their house to the shooting range, and heaven forfend if you're caught taking them anywhere else, because the tactical team will be on you before you can say "civil liberties".

It is funny how this turned from drinking to guns though, isn't it? [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif[/img] I guess they're pretty similar concepts, except you can't really use alcohol for self-defense. Sorta defeats the purpose. Unless you're throwing it in someone's eyes.
[/quote]

I'm crushed. All my work colleagues in Toronto used to tell me how much better it was in Canada because they had gun control. All my fantasies of Canada as Utopia (except for the obscenely high taxes) have been demolished. All that's left is poutine, I guess. <sigh>

When I tried to explain to my Canadian colleagues that in my suburb of Chicago, I can walk alone at night safely, they didn't believe me. The last gun-related death in my town was last year when a guy went nuts and killed his family. Very sad. The only gun-related death previous to that happened about 20 years ago, and again, it was a family dispute.

At some point, the best way to "win" a debate like this is to let the other guy feel like he's won, and then go out and have a drink. LOL It's not like the Internet is the real world and you're ever going to meet in real life.

I'm kicking myself for getting up. Now, when I go to bed, I won't be able to stop singing, "Take off, to the Great White North, Take off, It's a beauty way to go." Have a beer on me, eh?

[Innocent]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='25 April 2010 - 12:27 PM' timestamp='1272175033' post='2099636']
Lol, I hate to break it to you, but the laws in Canada don't work well at all. Criminals have guns, unless they live in a city that's too poor to get black market guns, like Saskatoon, in which case they just knife each other. Calgary used to be the same way until the Asian triads et. al. became more active. Now all the gangs have guns. Lots of guns. Trouble is, people who aren't in gangs, or who aren't criminals, don't have guns. Or if they do, legally they can only take them from their house to the shooting range, and heaven forfend if you're caught taking them anywhere else, because the tactical team will be on you before you can say "civil liberties".
[/quote]


So the Canada of James Oliver Curwood's adventure novels doesn't exist anymore?

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='IgnatiusofLoyola' date='25 April 2010 - 01:38 AM' timestamp='1272177507' post='2099649']
I'm crushed. All my work colleagues in Toronto used to tell me how much better it was in Canada because they had gun control. All my fantasies of Canada as Utopia (except for the obscenely high taxes) have been demolished. All that's left is poutine, I guess. <sigh>

When I tried to explain to my Canadian colleagues that in my suburb of Chicago, I can walk alone at night safely, they didn't believe me. The last gun-related death in my town was last year when a guy went nuts and killed his family. Very sad. The only gun-related death previous to that happened about 20 years ago, and again, it was a family dispute.

At some point, the best way to "win" a debate like this is to let the other guy feel like he's won, and then go out and have a drink. LOL It's not like the Internet is the real world and you're ever going to meet in real life.

I'm kicking myself for getting up. Now, when I go to bed, I won't be able to stop singing, "Take off, to the Great White North, Take off, It's a beauty way to go." Have a beer on me, eh?
[/quote]
Canadians like to delude themselves into thinking that everything we do in Canada is a million times better than the way Americans do it.

[quote name='Innocent' date='25 April 2010 - 11:27 AM' timestamp='1272212853' post='2099736']
So the Canada of James Oliver Curwood's adventure novels doesn't exist anymore?
[/quote]
Probably not.

[Marie-Therese]

Well, my plans for refuting havok's argument were derailed a little bit by some tornadoes and such last night. Just got my internet connection back about 15 minutes ago.

I come back and now he's moved on to guns?? I said I would quote every post he made; however, I reserve the right to exempt the gun comments, because that is a whole other topic and I only have so much patience.

It may take a while, but hopefully by the end of today I can finish. It may not bring havok to see the inconsistency of his argument, but at least I will fulfill my word.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Marie-Therese' date='25 April 2010 - 04:20 PM' timestamp='1272230405' post='2099876']
Well, my plans for refuting havok's argument were derailed a little bit by some tornadoes and such last night. Just got my internet connection back about 15 minutes ago.

I come back and now he's moved on to guns?? I said I would quote every post he made; however, I reserve the right to exempt the gun comments, because that is a whole other topic and I only have so much patience.

It may take a while, but hopefully by the end of today I can finish. It may not bring havok to see the inconsistency of his argument, but at least I will fulfill my word.
[/quote]
Right now you're my favourite person!

[Ed Normile]

Well this was found as I was looking up a picture of the Sacred Heart of Jesus in the open mic board and I remembered this drinking thread, so for your consideration......

[img]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Cq2Z1j3ugQs/Skjr1ODi04I/AAAAAAAAEeM/l6WuR2mDDCM/s400/3670476190_058b14fc84.jpg[/img]

ed

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Ed Normile' date='25 April 2010 - 04:44 PM' timestamp='1272231867' post='2099892']
Well this was found as I was looking up a picture of the Sacred Heart of Jesus in the open mic board and I remembered this drinking thread, so for your consideration......

[img]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Cq2Z1j3ugQs/Skjr1ODi04I/AAAAAAAAEeM/l6WuR2mDDCM/s400/3670476190_058b14fc84.jpg[/img]

ed
[/quote]
How irresponsible.

[Nihil Obstat]

I've found here an excerpt from the Rituale Romanum. It's a blessing for beer.

5. BLESSING OF BEER
P: Our help is in the name of the Lord.
All: Who made heaven and earth.
P: The Lord be with you.
All: May He also be with you.
Let us pray.
Lord, bless this creature, beer, which by your kindness and power has been produced from kernels of grain, and let it be a healthful drink for mankind. Grant that whoever drinks it with thanksgiving to your holy name may find it a help in body and in soul; through Christ our Lord. All: Amen.
It is sprinkled with holy water.

[Lilllabettt]

Re: guns, drinking, drugs, etc.

Under the constraints of the American Constitution, the government has a right to regulate social behavior. There is no such thing as a "right to privacy." There is only a "right to freedom from scrutiny."

For example: drugs. The government can pass a law saying you can't have this or that drug. The government cannot pass a law authorizing the police to pop open trunks without just cause, looking to see if you have that drug.

For example: sex. The government can pass a law banning certain kinds of sex. (e.g. sodomy.) The government cannot pass a law authorizing the police to break down your bedroom door to find out if sodomy is going on.

The idea that Americans, as a principle, are free to do what they please, is a totally modern innovation crystalized by the Warren Court. It's based in a juris prudence which is nowadays roundly mocked: that of "emanating penumbras:" imagined shadows emanating from the Bill of Rights overlap to form amorphous things like the "right to privacy," which in turn turned into a woman's right to abort her baby.

Whether or not government regulation of this or that social behavior is necessary or prudent is another matter. But its hardly a violation of the law.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Lilllabettt' date='25 April 2010 - 05:05 PM' timestamp='1272233140' post='2099905']
Re: guns, drinking, drugs, etc.

Under the constraints of the American Constitution, the government has a right to regulate social behavior.[/quote]

Under the constraints of the American Constitution (if there are any constraints) the united State government does not have rights, it has strictly enumerated powers.

[quote]
There is no such thing as a "right to privacy." There is only a "right to freedom from scrutiny."[/quote]

There is such a right to privacy. It's in the 9th Amendment. "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not beconstrued to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Just because it ain't written doesn't mean it ain't there. But then again, just because it [i]is[/i] written don't mean it is recognized by the united State.

Point out where Congress has the power to regulate social behavior. Article I, Section 8. Which sentence?

[quote]
For example: drugs. The government can pass a law saying you can't have this or that drug. The government cannot pass a law authorizing the police to pop open trunks without just cause, looking to see if you have that drug.[/quote]

The mini-States may pass such statutes, according to the Constitution. The united State may not.

[quote]For example: sex. The government can pass a law banning certain kinds of sex. (e.g. sodomy.) The government cannot pass a law authorizing the police to break down your bedroom door to find out if sodomy is going on.[/quote]

Ibid.

~Sternhauser

[Lilllabettt]

I am as opposed to unitary government as the next person.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Lilllabettt' date='25 April 2010 - 05:44 PM' timestamp='1272235491' post='2099932']
I am as opposed to unitary government as the next person.
[/quote]

The next person is usually very much in favor of it. But we're talking about the Constitution and what it allows and disallows.

~Sternhauser

[Lilllabettt]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='25 April 2010 - 07:50 PM' timestamp='1272235834' post='2099935']
The next person is usually very much in favor of it.

[/quote]

rotfl. true true