I believe in Liberty

[One Brow]

People really can't use food stamps to buy prepared food. They can't even shop at the deli at most grocery stores. They can't use microwaves in the 7-11(considered prepared).

If I buy a frozen burrito at 7-11, and then put it in the microwave, the person behind the counter will try to stop me? You can use food stamps to buy pizzas at Papa Murphy's.

Although, it's my fault for confusing processed foods and prepared foods. There's a big gap between "raw meat" and "prepared foods",

 

[One Brow]

That's my favorite pipe dream. Anarchy doesn't equal chaos. Anarchy = people working in free association towards common goals.

Name one time this has happened. There have been regions with no effective government, but they have never resulted in the type of anarchy you describe.

 

[♪alt13]

That level of exposure is not required for second-hand smoke, and your position seems to boil down to making it my responsibility to avoid any sort of poisons my neighbor emits. That's not realistic.

Private property is private property. I don't like the smog from your car or perfumes that I am alergic to.

Second Hand smoke is ********. That level is necessary.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6WITuzkS_g

 

[Stoked]

I believe in the freedom to:

carry a gun without a permit
speak openly
have faith
have no faith
drink any size soda that I want
not wear a seat belt
smoke in a bar(so long as the owner is ok with it)
burn flags
pay/get paid for sex
peaceful assembly
purchase and use mind altering substances
go where ever I want without a passport
marry a man or woman or a man and a woman etc.
not buy health insurance
pay a non-licensed beautician to cut my hair
buy beer on a sunday
drink it on my front porch
...

Buy is different from carry, though. When was the last time you saw one being carried?

You know exactly what he was talking about One Brow. Any attempt to say otherwise smacks of intellectual dishonesty.

 

[One Brow]

Private property is private property. I don't like the smog from your car or perfumes that I am alergic to.

Should I be responsible for any harms they cause you?

Second Hand smoke is ********. That level is necessary.

Penn has said that he now accepts second-hand smoke causes damage.

 

[One Brow]

You know exactly what he was talking about One Brow. Any attempt to say otherwise smacks of intellectual dishonesty.

You mean, I knew heyhey said carry a gun, and then GameFace was talking about what could be bought, so I'm intellectually dishonest for bringing it back to what can be carried? Or, that I'm dishonest for making the point that heyhey and I agree that the weapons a person can carry should be limited (this, not making it a question of fundamental liberty), and any actual disagreement is where to draw the line?

 

[Revolution 9]

I feel you should have the right to own a gun in your house, when I have the right to smoke a joint in mine.

 

[Stoked]

I feel you should have the right to own a gun in your house, when I have the right to smoke a joint in mine.

Agreed.

 

[Bronco70]

I feel you should have the right to own a gun in your house, when I have the right to smoke a joint in mine.

So as long you can't (legally) smoke a doob in your own home, you I think should have to give up some other freedom? Is that to make it "fair"?

BTW, I'm all for legalizing marijuana. I just want to understand whether there is a connection in your statement, or if gun ownership is something you picked arbitrarily to make a point.

 

[Gameface]

that is not anarchy my friend.
that is whatr the media and government call anarchy.
so anarchy gets a bad name

I'm calling the way disputes are settled in black markets a type of anarchy. I know there are a few takes on what anarchy means, but by my basic understanding anarchy is a contradiction.

 

[Gameface]

You mean, I knew heyhey said carry a gun, and then GameFace was talking about what could be bought, so I'm intellectually dishonest for bringing it back to what can be carried? Or, that I'm dishonest for making the point that heyhey and I agree that the weapons a person can carry should be limited (this, not making it a question of fundamental liberty), and any actual disagreement is where to draw the line?

This boogeyman of weapons too powerful to be trusted int eh hands of normal people is lame. I'm not going to get into it. I didn't read a few pages back so I don't know where this has gone, but there is no danger from rocket launchers being carried. It's silly and it's based on a cartoonish version of humanity that doesn't really exist.

A few years back california banned the Barrett .50 cal from personal ownership. Why? Because it was just too powerful to allow normal people to own. In utah, I'm pretty sure you could "carry" a .50 cal if you had a desire to. People don't. It's not practical at all. The thing is heavy as hell, for one. It can't be concealed on a person. It can't be deployed rapidly. It isn't good for close quarters situations. The ammo costs (last time I checked) about $5 a pop. That gun had never been used in a crime, yet it was easy to make the argument that no normal person should be allowed to own one because it is just too powerful.

Same goes for a rocket launcher. They aren't cheap, they are extremely conspicuous, they can't be used effectively in close quarters. What scenario do you imagine would take place if people were allowed to carry a rocket launcher. Certainly mayhem would ensue, right?

 

[♪alt13]

I'm calling the way disputes are settled in black markets a type of anarchy. I know there are a few takes on what anarchy means, but by my basic understanding anarchy is a contradiction.

I think this is what he was trying to say.
Anarchy simply means without rulers. It doesn't necessarily mean without rules.

 

[♪alt13]

If I buy a frozen burrito at 7-11, and then put it in the microwave, the person behind the counter will try to stop me? You can use food stamps to buy pizzas at Papa Murphy's.

Although, it's my fault for confusing processed foods and prepared foods. There's a big gap between "raw meat" and "prepared foods",

Well of course your pro food stamps.

If I was getting something for free I would be all about it. I would try to resist and stand on principle, but free **** is cool.

 

[The Thriller]

I believe in the freedom to:

carry a gun without a permit
speak openly
have faith
have no faith
drink any size soda that I want
not wear a seat belt
smoke in a bar(so long as the owner is ok with it)
burn flags
pay/get paid for sex
peaceful assembly
purchase and use mind altering substances
go where ever I want without a passport
marry a man or woman or a man and a woman etc.
not buy health insurance
pay a non-licensed beautician to cut my hair
buy beer on a sunday
drink it on my front porch
...

Move to Somalia.

 

[♪alt13]

Move to Somalia.

First of all I hate the "move argument". Should Martin Luther King just moved because of Jim Crowe laws?

Secondly I think somalia might be a tough place to exercise bold

I believe in the freedom to:

carry a gun without a permit
speak openly
have faith
have no faith
drink any size soda that I want or drink any soda at all
not wear a seat belt
smoke in a bar(so long as the owner is ok with it)
burn flags
pay/get paid for sex
peaceful assembly
purchase and use mind altering substances
go where ever I want without a passport
marry a man or woman or a man and a woman etc.
not buy health insurance
pay a non-licensed beautician to cut my hair
buy beer on a sunday
drink it on my front porch
...

 

[ema]

Hypothetical question...

Let's say we invented a gun which does not kill a person in anyway but it can entirely protect you or your home and make a person completely disable to harm you for a good amount of time. (like a much advanced version of a taser) It has all the necessary features like multiple firing and adequate range etc.

In this case, would you still call for the extensive freedom for current lethal guns? I'm asking this question because one of the main mainstays of the pro-gun crowd is self-defense.

BTW, I'm not stating my stand(which is irrelevant) on the subject in anyway, I'm just trying to understand the freedom concept when it's about the guns.

 

[Gameface]

Hypothetical question...

Let's say we invented a gun which does not kill a person in anyway but it can entirely protect you or your home and make a person completely disable to harm you for a good amount of time. (like a much advanced version of a taser) It has all the necessary features like multiple firing and adequate range etc.

In this case, would you still call for the extensive freedom for current lethal guns? I'm asking this question because one of the main mainstays of the pro-gun crowd is self-defense.

BTW, I'm not stating my stand(which is irrelevant) on the subject in anyway, I'm just trying to understand the freedom concept when it's about the guns.

Well, for the most part that sounds like an upgrade to a gun. I would think most people would simply prefer it to a gun even if both were legal. I mean, it even sounds like it could be used for hunting. Of course, this is a hypothetical "everything a gun can do except it doesn't kill." In real life there would probably be some give and take between the non-lethal gun and a traditional firearm.

 

[ema]

Well, for the most part that sounds like an upgrade to a gun. I would think most people would simply prefer it to a gun even if both were legal. I mean, it even sounds like it could be used for hunting. Of course, this is a hypothetical "everything a gun can do except it doesn't kill." In real life there would probably be some give and take between the non-lethal gun and a traditional firearm.

For me, I already prefer a taser to a real lethal gun. If, of course, my main motive is self defense. I tried to picture a more perfected gun because, generally tough guys, real men, don't like ***** guns like a taser.

 

[Ron Mexico]

Never been stuck in Utah county on a sunday,huh.

That has changed in Provo, you can buy beer on Sunday now!

 

[Gameface]

That has changed in Provo, you can buy beer on Sunday now!

Just in Provo? Still a no-go in the rest of Utah County?