View Poll Results: Should we propose further alcohol control?

Voters
34. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    4 11.76%
  • No

    23 67.65%
  • Other

    7 20.59%
Page 6 of 18 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 178

Thread: Time for Alcohol Control?

  1. #51
    Gradualist

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    09-25-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    34,949
    Blog Entries
    6

    Re: Time for Alcohol Control?

    We already have alcohol control..... Just sayin...


  2. #52
    Sage
    Lutherf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Tucson, AZ
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    24,697

    Re: Time for Alcohol Control?

    Quote Originally Posted by Vapor View Post
    Would you like to borrow my spare tin foil hat?
    Interesting...so far progressives have conceded that every single proposal made regarding gun control would not prevent another Newtown or Aurora but somehow or other I'm the one that's paranoid about having MY rights restricted for no good purpose?

  3. #53
    Professor
    zstep18's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Somewhere
    Last Seen
    02-24-14 @ 02:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,770

    Re: Time for Alcohol Control?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    Considering all the talk of gun control lately, let's review the facts around alcohol and consider some further restrictions around another "death causer."
    There are already restrictions of alcohol.

    Other than that, there is not much of a comparison between alcohol and guns. I can purposefully kill a lot of innocent people with a gun. I can't really do that with alcohol.

    It's mostly destructive on the individual.

  4. #54
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: Time for Alcohol Control?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Yes. For example, you would be allowed to possess a loaded firearm in a car which I am driving in many more states than you could legally possess an open alcoholic beverage in a car which I am driving.
    I actually varies from state to state, even with a CC permit, some states do not allow it.
    Even with the weapon unloaded.
    In most states you can carry a non concealed weapon from place to place provided it isn't a banned firearm (in that state).

    Concealed carry in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    But it really doesn't stop there.
    There are federal laws that govern how many parts of a firearm are allowed to not be made in America.
    Which to the unknowledgable person, could have them committing a felony and not know it.


    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Going further, there are more places where you would be allowed to carry a loaded firearm in public (both openly and concealed) than there are places where you are allowed to openly carry alcoholic beverages in public.
    That is not clear either, in fact I think open carry is more restricted than conceal carry, again though, it's different from place to place.
    Open carry in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    If I have a large personal collection of firearms, I can sell those firearms legally without facing , even here in Illinois. I cannot, however, legally sell a large personal collection of alcohol without facing some severe consequences and punishment for selling alcohol without a license.
    Not entirely true either.
    Depends on how one sells the collection.
    Depending on how it's done, it could be considered "doing business" in firearms and that requires a FF license.
    If not, that's a felony, whether or not your intentions were good or bad.


    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Alcohol is more regulated than guns. Just because there is no background check to purchase alcohol (although there is an identity check, and purveyors of alcohol can face severe penalties if they fail to perform these identity checks or if they perform them incompetently) doesn't mean that it is less regulated.
    Of course, but I think you've missed the other regulations involved in firearms sales.
    Does the seller of alcohol have to keep a bound book of all sales?
    If an FFL does not perform the legally mandated checks and keep a bound book of all sales, that's a felony/multiple felonies.


    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Each local municipality has the right to enact such control if they so choose, and many do. There are quite a few "dry" counties and towns in the country (many of which even ban the possession of alcohol in one's own home). Whereas McDonald v. Chicago now prevents such local ordinances from existing for guns. That's why the comparison here is deeply flawed (your goal of comparison does not compute with the realities of the way the two are currently regulated, and where the primary power to regulate locally lies).

    While I was personally happy about the McDonald v. Chicago ruling for personal reasons (I was directly affected by the ruling in a positive way as a resident of Chicago, and I admitted to my hypocrisy on this when the ruling was made), politically I consider it to be a hypocritical degradation of state and local rights in favor of a big government nanny state by many of the same people who oppose the reverse occurring when it comes down to other issues that they do not support personally (such as gay marriage, many libertarians excluded from that example).
    Yes but there are laws in effect that ban the type of firearm one can own, in many jurisdictions.
    So while there isn't a complete ban on firearms in all municipalities, there are laws restricting the sales and possession which can closely resemble such.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    I personally oppose the vast majority of federal laws in both directions: both from the permissive and restrictive perspective, for guns AND alcohol. I believe that gun control is also a state and local issue, not a federal one (the state militias should be regulated BY the states). Unfortunately for gun proponents (the majority of which were not even from Chicago and D.C.), they supported (and in fact guaranteed) federalizing such gun regulations in the future by virtue of supporting the McDonald and Heller decisions. By castrating state and local governments on this issue, they made it certain that the increasing demand for gun control (as misguided as it may be) will be carried out at the federal level rather than the local level. Their hypocrisy on this issue is what will lead to their own defeat in this regard.
    Well to a degree, I would agree with you, in others I would not.
    States and localities still have broad powers in which to deal with firearms.
    Many do like, Maryland, DC, California, Mass., Hawaii, etc.

    Firearm laws are not universal for every state.
    Federally is has to be dealth with, because it is supposed to be a right, which constantly get altered.

    Unfortunately, to get it recognized federally, they had to try a state case of firearm bans.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    I am absolutely willing to admit my hypocrisy on this issue because I was directly affected by the federal intervention in McDonald v. Chicago, which is why I was pleased by the decision on one level. However, I was also dismayed by the decision, and stated so immediately after the ruling occurred, because of it's effects. Sadly, we do not live in a world where people are content to allow others to decide for themselves, no matter how little they are affected by the decisions of others. If constituents in a particular locality wants to ban guns or alcohol outright, that should be their right. They should not be subjected to nanny-state, big government interference on these matters because the money driving such interference is not local money, but instead it is national money procured by some busybody assholes who are not content to allow others to have freedom.
    I'm not really into this to test laws, on a state by state or locality basis.
    I'm doing this to test people, who give me excuses like, preserving life and compelling public interest.
    Alcohol's societal effects can arguably be larger, than that of guns.

    I want to know if, people will actively recognize their own contradictions.
    The reasons why they believe alcohol related deaths are acceptable but firearm deaths are not.
    Basically if death from a non necessary thing is unacceptable, that should be universal for all non necessary things.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    So while I think alcohol is a good basis for a comparison if one wishes to oppose rulings such as Heller and McDonald based on the way they undermine state and local governance rights (rather than based on opposition to guns), I think it is a terrible comparison when one is speaking from a federal perspective. Not only are there more current regulations on alcohol when viewed completely (at every level of government), there is far more freedom to regulate alcohol than there is freedom to regulate firearms at the local level as a result of those rulings.
    I'm not really wanting to debate federal laws, I'm just using the further restrictions for the basis of why one should be more available, while another should not.
    If you get what I mean.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  5. #55
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: Time for Alcohol Control?

    Quote Originally Posted by zstep18 View Post
    There are already restrictions of alcohol.
    That doesn't mean there shouldn't be more.

    Quote Originally Posted by zstep18 View Post
    Other than that, there is not much of a comparison between alcohol and guns. I can purposefully kill a lot of innocent people with a gun. I can't really do that with alcohol.

    It's mostly destructive on the individual.
    It's not a item for item comparison.
    It's a comparison of compelling public interest.

    If alcohol causes negative societal externalities, arguably, worse than firearms.
    Does it not make sense to regulate it more, to reduce such externalities?
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  6. #56
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: Time for Alcohol Control?

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemSocialist View Post
    We already have alcohol control..... Just sayin...
    We already have gun control too.
    That doesn't mean there shouldn't be more control.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  7. #57
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: Time for Alcohol Control?

    Quote Originally Posted by 0bserver92 View Post
    Well mainly because it's fun, alcohol especially wine has a taste people want and a will to get. Even if you made it illegal it's easy to make your own, you can't make your own guns.
    Taste is not a good enough excuse, when there is compelling public interest at hand.
    Yes, you can make your own guns.

    Quote Originally Posted by 0bserver92 View Post
    There is no way to control alcohol really if someone wants it they can get and probably very easy to. It's also good for the economy and tax revenue.
    Yes there is.
    Legal controls, will reduce consumption among those who follow the law.
    Prohibition shows this.

    So having alcohol taxes is preferable to the negative externalities associated with alcohol?
    Do you realize that alcoholism goes farther than DUI's and death, that it effects society in many levels, including child rearing and medical costs.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  8. #58
    Professor
    zstep18's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Somewhere
    Last Seen
    02-24-14 @ 02:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,770

    Re: Time for Alcohol Control?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    That doesn't mean there shouldn't be more.



    It's not a item for item comparison.
    It's a comparison of compelling public interest.

    If alcohol causes negative societal externalities, arguably, worse than firearms.
    Does it not make sense to regulate it more, to reduce such externalities?
    The very nature of alcohol and firearms are different. Unless your a gun collector or a hunter, firearms equate to violence in some way or another.

  9. #59
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: Time for Alcohol Control?

    Quote Originally Posted by zstep18 View Post
    The very nature of alcohol and firearms are different. Unless your a gun collector or a hunter, firearms equate to violence in some way or another.
    You're dodging the question.
    It doesn't matter the "nature" of an item.

    What matters is the effects of the item, being in circulation.
    Both items in circulation, supposedly have negative societal externalities.
    Consumptive alcohol is a contributor in violence, disease and death.

    It only makes sense to lessen it's presence, unless you're willing to accept that we should have the freedom to possess things, regardless of their effects on society at large.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  10. #60
    Sit Nomine Digna
    Carjosse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Montreal, QC, Canada
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    11,208

    Re: Time for Alcohol Control?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    Taste is not a good enough excuse, when there is compelling public interest at hand.
    Yes, you can make your own guns.



    Yes there is.
    Legal controls, will reduce consumption among those who follow the law.
    Prohibition shows this.

    So having alcohol taxes is preferable to the negative externalities associated with alcohol?
    Do you realize that alcoholism goes farther than DUI's and death, that it effects society in many levels, including child rearing and medical costs.
    I would say that alcohol is far safer than open access to guns I don't remember anyone going and shooting up a school because they had ready access to alcohol, alcohol is also not meant to kill people and for the majority of most people it presents no issue, and there are reasons want alcohol, legitimate social reasons. Problems with alcohol can be solved by raising awareness about drinking responsibly whereas firearms are a major concern and the only way to prevent is to limit access to them without a major hassle to any sane person.

Page 6 of 18 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •