• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Time for Alcohol Control?

Should we propose further alcohol control?

  • Yes

    Votes: 4 12.1%
  • No

    Votes: 22 66.7%
  • Other

    Votes: 7 21.2%

  • Total voters
    33
You know, or should know that this is NOT true.
The mother of the mass murderer is a good case in point.
People who care about others can do a lot...
She may have lived in fear of her own son...
Where was the father ?
Its called families....communities....society....easier in the cities where people are so close....out in the country there can be KKK rallies and only the cows would be bothered

Well, we're going to disagree.
What you think is "good" legislation, I do not.


I don't know what you're getting at with KKK rallies or whatever the hell that's supposed to mean.
 
They should allow teachers to have alcohol in schools. Pilots should be able to have alcohol in the cockpit. If everyone had alcohol then there would be less alcohol related deaths.

:lol:
 
They should allow teachers to have alcohol in schools. Pilots should be able to have alcohol in the cockpit. If everyone had alcohol then there would be less alcohol related deaths.

:lol:
That argument might work when alcohol gets used to fend off attackers.
 
To those that are arguing that "gun control" and "alcohol control" are too different to compare, I ask: In what ways are they different? The similarities are clear enough: unregulated, both cause deaths.

People are not so evil as a whole to choose to kill other people more often than accidentally kill people, as evidenced by the fact that the number of alcohol related deaths is 2.5x's the amount of gun-related deaths annually (Alcohol linked to 75,000 U.S. deaths a year - Health - Addictions | NBC News vs How many gun deaths are in the US every year)

Also factoring in the fact that only 47% of Americans own guns (Self-Reported Gun Ownership in U.S. Is Highest Since 1993) while 67% of Americans drink (U.S. Drinking Rate Edges Up Slightly to 25-Year High), reduces the cause of death per capita death ratio from 2.5x's to 1.75x's. In short, alcohol is 1.75x's more likely to kill than gun ownership. (not including unreported gun ownership - which would likely significantly increase the death per capita ratio of alcohol killing more than gun-owners as so many gun-related deaths are homicides from weapons retrieved illegally)

Why are so many for regulating guns more, but not alcohol when alcohol is more harmful to society? I believe I know the answer: It's similar to how if a Hurricane kills 6,000 people, that's a tragedy which we will mourn for half of a generation. If an act of terror kills 3,000 people (9/11), it will be mourned by the nation for possibly centuries. Acts of intent are psychologically more damaging to the people. All other arguments aside regarding whether regulating guns will increase or decrease crime statistics, I ask those that are for regulating guns, but oppose regulating alcohol: Is it because of safety or because of your personal psychological comfort that you wish to regulate guns? I ask that you put the facts before you and instead of making an emotional decision to regulate guns but not alcohol, see that the terror is just as real in both cases.

Alcohol induced deaths are more of a threat to this nation; Our willingness to accept them as a part of our society is our willingness to stand up for freedom. If you're willing to undermine those freedoms for a cause less damaging, you are giving up your ground to stand on for freedoms more damaging, such as alcohol. I only suggest you consider other options other than government regulations to give your mind peace. That other option for me is gun-ownership. I have a lot of peace of mind having a gun very near me while I sleep.
Both are dangerous, one more than the other, but, IMO, this matters not.
To do nothing, out of fear of the alcohol lobby or the NRA, is criminal.
In PA we have our state stores and our police....this is our control.
But, we need 100% gun control...NOT with loopholes large enough for the Queen Elizabeth to sail thru..
Its a poor/weak argument when natural disasters are introduced...Lets limit this to things that can be controlled, alcohol and guns.
We have lawmakers, I think.
There job is to make laws as necessary.
 
I actually varies from state to state

I know, which is why I made a comparison on the number of states that allow rather than a general statement about what is or is not allowed. Many more states allow the gun than the alcohol.

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

Again, the statement I made was clear. "More" being the key word.

Also, Open carry is but one half of the equation.

Not entirely true either.

It is entirely true. I CAN sell firearms from my personal collection, I CANNOT sell alcohol from my personal collection. The statement is not dependent on the way that the sale took place, just the fact that such as sale CAN take place.

It's important to debate the point being made, not the point you wish was made. The last three quote were not about my statements, but about what you wish my statements had been instead of what they were.



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?

Yes, for tax purposes. Alcohol is taxed differently, thus they have to keep inventory of their sales. Now, it's not in a bound book, of course, but it's the exact same activity.

If an FFL does not perform the legally mandated checks and keep a bound book of all sales, that's a felony/multiple felonies.

Good. The right to deal firearms is not protected by the 2nd. Keep and bear, not have a business selling them. And if the alcohol merchant does not keep track of their sales they can be charged with multiple felonies for tax evasion.

The issue being discussed, however, was what the purchaser is subjected to, not what the merchant is required to do. The merchant is liable if they do not perform the checks, but the purchaser is the one subjected to the checks.



Yes but there are laws in effect that ban the type of firearm one can own, in many jurisdictions.

That's what McDonald v. Chicago ended, actually. That decision ended such ban in Chicago by incorporating the 2nd to the states.

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.

Sale by an authorized firearm dealer, yes, and that is fine since the second makes no mention of a right to sell, but individuals can still sell from their own personal collection, provided they don't try to make it a business (something one cannot legally do with their alcohol).

Incorporation of the 2nd, however, makes restrictions on owning a gun in your home illegal, however. Now, one might say that they've gotten around this by doing sketchy things with regard to taxes, and they have, but these are not really restrictions, despite the fact that they can be very restrictive. This is no different than what is done with alcohol and tobacco, however.


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.

Not that broad after the incorporation of the 2nd.

Firearm laws are not universal for every state.

No, of course not, but there are some permissive universals which do not exist for alcohol (alcohol's universals are all restrictive in nature).

Federally is has to be dealth with, because it is supposed to be a right, which constantly get altered.

Therein lies the crux of the debate: Does the Bill of Rights exist to limit federal authority (as it claims in the preamble to the Bill of rights and as the history books tell us it was created to do in reaction ot the federalist/anti-federalist papers) or does it exist to exert the supreme authority of the Federal Government over the states in an effort to preserve individual rights?

History tells us it was created to be the former: a restriction on the federal government.

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

Exactly. In order to reinterpret the constitution to support their position, they had to usurp state's rights.

I'm not really into this to test laws, on a state by state or locality basis.

I know. I'm using those examples to point out the flaw in the comparison, though.

I'm doing this to test people, who give me excuses like, preserving life and compelling public interest.

I know, but the test is flawed because of the reasons I point out: federal authority vs. State and local authority. People CAN live in dry counties if they despise the negative affects of alcohol. People can also choose to live in very permissive counties with regard to alcohol.

However people cannot live in gun-free counties. They can live in somewhat less gun-friendly counties (although that really amounts to "gun-neutral" when viewed from a global perspective rather than the amero-centric perspective). My point is that localizing such isues, rather than federalizing them, allows more people to live with whatever degree of permissiveness or restrictiveness they wish to live under. It guarantees the highest degree of personal freedom by allowing the most varied number of choices. Because that's what freedom really is: the range of options one has at their disposal. The greater teh range of options, the more freedom they have

Alcohol's societal effects can arguably be larger, than that of guns.

Not really. If we look at things fully systemically, and include all of the effects that guns and alcohol have and have had, it's pretty much neck and neck. They both have many positives too, but people don't like to think of those. Alcohol sales helped build this country. But without guns (especially improved technology of guns as compared to the weapons others used against us), it never could have existed or survived.

I want to know if, people will actively recognize their own contradictions.

So do I, that's why I bring up the federal vs. state thing. ;) But remember, it's important to make sure you are corect in noting a contradiction. This requires one to use accurate equivalencies and premises, rather than assumed ones. More on that later.

The reasons why they believe alcohol related deaths are acceptable but firearm deaths are not.

That's a strawman, though. Nobody is actually making the claim that alcohol related deaths are acceptable. People support restrictions on the sale of alcohol and regulation of alcohol. Few people call for an outright ban, though. Many people who support gun control would also be on board with alcohol restrictions that they believe would save lives as opposed to the one's you presented to look similar to proposed gun restrictions. For example, mandatory ignition locks for vehicles calibrated to prevent cars from starting of the driver blows above the legal limit of .08, for example. Others might wish to see the legal limit lowered further still, even to the point of a zero tolerance law for drinking and driving.

Trying to mimic the proposed gun control laws (as you have done in this thread) is sheer folly, because alcohol's dangers are not even remotely similar to those presented by firearms. This means you aren't even testing what you wish to test: people's consistency on regulating societal dangers. Even someone who would support increased restrictions on alcohol would look at your proposals as absurd because your proposals were not designed to save lives from the dangers of alcohol, instead they were designed to look similar to the proposed restrictions on guns.

Your proposals are irrational, not simply because they won't work to achieve the "desired goal", but because they were designed with an entirely different goal in mind.

Basically if death from a non necessary thing is unacceptable, that should be universal for all non necessary things.

That is not an existing premise for gun control, though. The problem here is the same as what happened in the first few quotes of this post: you aren't arguing against statements which are actually made. You are arguing against imaginary statements.

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 get it, but the problem is that you aren't really debating the issue you claim to want to debate either, by virtue of using a innacurate comparison to attack what amounts to a strawman argument.

That being said, there is definitely some potential to your approach here, you just fell into problem of seeing equivalencies when they don't exist which caused the desired goal of testing consistency to become impossible.

But equivalencies between proposed gun restrictions and proposed alcohol-related restrictions do exist (the key here is to use real proposals for both that have similarities). The thread can be salvaged by making accurate equivalencies. For example, if you had used the proposal to make owner-specific trigger locks mandatory and compared it to breathalyzer ignition locks, you would have been spot on. If someone supports the trigger locks in order to prevent unnecessary deaths, they would need to support the ignition locks in order to be consistent in their desire to prevent unnecessary deaths. If they support trigger locks in order to prevent crime-related deaths (stolen guns, for example), the same goal is achieved with ignition locks (DUI manslaughter). I can't really think of a premise which supports one restriction but not the other (although that does not mean that one doesn't exist).

The point I'm making is that in order to test consistency, you have to have real equivalencies that are dependent on real premises that people employ (rather than the premises you imagine they must employ). The argument you have presented here does not do this.
 
He did it to be sarcastic. Try to read between the lines.

I didn't mean that Harry failed. I get that he was being sarcastic. I meant that people taking the analogy seriously, as some are, fails. My bad.
 
Both are dangerous, one more than the other, but, IMO, this matters not.
To do nothing, out of fear of the alcohol lobby or the NRA, is criminal.
In PA we have our state stores and our police....this is our control.
But, we need 100% gun control...NOT with loopholes large enough for the Queen Elizabeth to sail thru..
Its a poor/weak argument when natural disasters are introduced...Lets limit this to things that can be controlled, alcohol and guns.
We have lawmakers, I think.
There job is to make laws as necessary.

The naturals disaster proponent was only introduced to show that intent vs accident has a more severe psychological effect. It is not an argument. We also have gun control in PA (I live here too). If you buy a handgun, they call in your DL number and likely, you can take the gun with you, but it is a check. Also, you need to apply for your conceal permit at your sherriff's office and they must give it to you unless they have reason not to. Similarly, they must give you the alcohol in PA unless they have reason not to, i.e. visibly intoxicated and they limit the amount of beer you can buy from a bar, etc. There are regulations on both.

The question is, with alcohol being the more damaging to society (in that it kills more people per capita of drinkers than gun owners), why are you insisting on more gun regulation, but not more alcohol regulation? What is the difference?
 
Well, we're going to disagree.
What you think is "good" legislation, I do not.


I don't know what you're getting at with KKK rallies or whatever the hell that's supposed to mean.
Good gun legislation is the prohibition of the mentally insane from gun ownership (back ground checks).
These are at 60% today, should be at 99%.
Guns are dangerous are they not ?
Thus we need a data base for every single gun owner....we have this for automobiles now..
Families , communities.....this requires thinking. Imagine a KKK rally being held in Harlem or Watts, or in Goldsboro ...Fights would occur, I'd be involved....Beating my own drum....when it gets so close to home, I do care.
The trouble is, so few do, and we bring woe unto ourselves....and our children..
As for those who "think" we can do nothing ...that our "freedoms and liberties" are more important......selfish is applicable.
 
Good gun legislation is the prohibition of the mentally insane from gun ownership (back ground checks).
These are at 60% today, should be at 99%.
Guns are dangerous are they not ?
Thus we need a data base for every single gun owner....we have this for automobiles now..
Families , communities.....this requires thinking. Imagine a KKK rally being held in Harlem or Watts, or in Goldsboro ...Fights would occur, I'd be involved....Beating my own drum....when it gets so close to home, I do care.
The trouble is, so few do, and we bring woe unto ourselves....and our children..
As for those who "think" we can do nothing ...that our "freedoms and liberties" are more important......selfish is applicable.

^now we're to the crux of the argument. It cost lives to live in the society that we do. We believe people should have the privilege to drive, though it causes deaths. We believe people ought to have the privilege to drink, though it causes death. The list is nearly infinite.

We believe in many freedoms/privileges not spelled out in the constitution that cause death in our society. To regulate each one that causes death would be insane. So we must regulate the ones that are most damaging to society. Either by making them entirely illegal, see Heroin, or by regulating them: see guns, driving, etc..

The point of this thread is that there are societal privileges that we accept that are more damaging, causes more deaths, that we are willing to continue in order to maintain our current society. We obviously cannot and should not regulate everything that causes deaths. If we start regulating the things that are less damaging, we give up our ground for arguing against regulation on things that are more damaging, such as alcohol.
 
Holy ****ing wall of text, you've got me on several points and I can't really defend many(or rather any) of them.
For that, I hate you. ;)

I'll just get to the stuff I may have a quibble with.



That's what McDonald v. Chicago ended, actually. That decision ended such ban in Chicago by incorporating the 2nd to the states.

Therein lies the crux of the debate: Does the Bill of Rights exist to limit federal authority (as it claims in the preamble to the Bill of rights and as the history books tell us it was created to do in reaction ot the federalist/anti-federalist papers) or does it exist to exert the supreme authority of the Federal Government over the states in an effort to preserve individual rights?

History tells us it was created to be the former: a restriction on the federal government.

Exactly. In order to reinterpret the constitution to support their position, they had to usurp state's rights.

Not really. If we look at things fully systemically, and include all of the effects that guns and alcohol have and have had, it's pretty much neck and neck. They both have many positives too, but people don't like to think of those. Alcohol sales helped build this country. But without guns (especially improved technology of guns as compared to the weapons others used against us), it never could have existed or survived.

So do I, that's why I bring up the federal vs. state thing. ;) But remember, it's important to make sure you are corect in noting a contradiction. This requires one to use accurate equivalencies and premises, rather than assumed ones. More on that later.

I was under the impression that the Bill of Rights, was both a restriction on federal and state governments.
With the supremacy doctrine and the 10th amendment, settling that out.

That's a strawman, though. Nobody is actually making the claim that alcohol related deaths are acceptable. People support restrictions on the sale of alcohol and regulation of alcohol. Few people call for an outright ban, though. Many people who support gun control would also be on board with alcohol restrictions that they believe would save lives as opposed to the one's you presented to look similar to proposed gun restrictions. For example, mandatory ignition locks for vehicles calibrated to prevent cars from starting of the driver blows above the legal limit of .08, for example. Others might wish to see the legal limit lowered further still, even to the point of a zero tolerance law for drinking and driving.

Trying to mimic the proposed gun control laws (as you have done in this thread) is sheer folly, because alcohol's dangers are not even remotely similar to those presented by firearms. This means you aren't even testing what you wish to test: people's consistency on regulating societal dangers. Even someone who would support increased restrictions on alcohol would look at your proposals as absurd because your proposals were not designed to save lives from the dangers of alcohol, instead they were designed to look similar to the proposed restrictions on guns.

Your proposals are irrational, not simply because they won't work to achieve the "desired goal", but because they were designed with an entirely different goal in mind.

I actually think a background check, to see if the purchaser had priors (DUI, Domestic violence while intoxicated, etc.), would reduce availability of alcohol, to those who are irresponsible.
And it's entirely possible that limiting the quantity of alcohol one can purchase, as well as the alcohol content, could also reduce the amount of people who commit DUI.

That is not an existing premise for gun control, though. The problem here is the same as what happened in the first few quotes of this post: you aren't arguing against statements which are actually made. You are arguing against imaginary statements.

Actually I designed it based on the comments other made in the gun control thread.

If the intent of people is to save lives (the common comment in gun control threads), then they should have no issue further regulating alcohol to reduces lives lost, as a result of irresponsible drinkers.


But equivalencies between proposed gun restrictions and proposed alcohol-related restrictions do exist (the key here is to use real proposals for both that have similarities). The thread can be salvaged by making accurate equivalencies. For example, if you had used the proposal to make owner-specific trigger locks mandatory and compared it to breathalyzer ignition locks, you would have been spot on. If someone supports the trigger locks in order to prevent unnecessary deaths, they would need to support the ignition locks in order to be consistent in their desire to prevent unnecessary deaths. If they support trigger locks in order to prevent crime-related deaths (stolen guns, for example), the same goal is achieved with ignition locks (DUI manslaughter). I can't really think of a premise which supports one restriction but not the other (although that does not mean that one doesn't exist).

The point I'm making is that in order to test consistency, you have to have real equivalencies that are dependent on real premises that people employ (rather than the premises you imagine they must employ). The argument you have presented here does not do this.

I think, at the very least, the background check carries water.
One can check the background of someone who is a serial violator of laws, in relations to alcohol.
 
Good gun legislation is the prohibition of the mentally insane from gun ownership (back ground checks).

That's fine.
No argument from me.

These are at 60% today, should be at 99%.
Guns are dangerous are they not ?
Thus we need a data base for every single gun owner....we have this for automobiles now..

We already have informal registration, I'm trying to figure out what this would solve?

Families , communities.....this requires thinking. Imagine a KKK rally being held in Harlem or Watts, or in Goldsboro ...Fights would occur, I'd be involved....Beating my own drum....when it gets so close to home, I do care.
The trouble is, so few do, and we bring woe unto ourselves....and our children..
As for those who "think" we can do nothing ...that our "freedoms and liberties" are more important......selfish is applicable.

Sorry, but people are allowed to be selfish with their supposed "rights."
 
The naturals disaster proponent was only introduced to show that intent vs accident has a more severe psychological effect. It is not an argument. We also have gun control in PA (I live here too). If you buy a handgun, they call in your DL number and likely, you can take the gun with you, but it is a check. Also, you need to apply for your conceal permit at your sheriff's office and they must give it to you unless they have reason not to. Similarly, they must give you the alcohol in PA unless they have reason not to, i.e. visibly intoxicated and they limit the amount of beer you can buy from a bar, etc. There are regulations on both.

The question is, with alcohol being the more damaging to society (in that it kills more people per capita of drinkers than gun owners), why are you insisting on more gun regulation, but not more alcohol regulation? What is the difference?
Perhaps in PA we have quite good controls on both..
I am neither a drinker nor an owner....good thing too....
Intent.....accident.....yes, I'll buy the difference.....dead is dead.....but is it necessary ?
We can escape (usually ) the bolt of lightening and the deadly snake bite (99% of the time)
But the drunk driver or the stray bullet .....not so easy.
Regulations are easy to overcome...thus more must be done..
So, in truth, both are dangerous, lets at least work on one.
Were the murdered children victims of alcohol or guns ?
Or, were they victims of an uncaring society ?
We cannot do everything...some things are impossible to work on....Such as man's attitudes....or his fears.
But we can have our state stores for alcohol and 99% background check for gun owners.
Or we can do away with the government and return to the "king of the hill" society.
 
Perhaps in PA we have quite good controls on both..
I am neither a drinker nor an owner....good thing too....
Intent.....accident.....yes, I'll buy the difference.....dead is dead.....but is it necessary ?
We can escape (usually ) the bolt of lightening and the deadly snake bite (99% of the time)
But the drunk driver or the stray bullet .....not so easy.
Regulations are easy to overcome...thus more must be done..
So, in truth, both are dangerous, lets at least work on one.
Were the murdered children victims of alcohol or guns ?
Or, were they victims of an uncaring society ?
We cannot do everything...some things are impossible to work on....Such as man's attitudes....or his fears.
But we can have our state stores for alcohol and 99% background check for gun owners.
Or we can do away with the government and return to the "king of the hill" society.


I'm not such an extremist to do away with government, no. I believe we both agree that there is a cost of human lives to live in our current society to have the privileges that we do (otherwise we wouldn't be able to drive, intoxicated or not). It's not a matter of total control or no control for either of us I believe. Instead, it's a matter of how much control and how much are we willing to pay in terms of lives that it cost to live in our society.

I am very glad that you concede that both need to be regulated more (both being alcohol and guns). Though I disagree completely, an inconsistency in logic occurs if you support one and not the other. If you support both and I support neither, it means only that either 1) I'm willing to accept more lives as the cost of our way of life or 2) I legitimately believe that more regulations would cause more lives lost.

Regardless we both are willing to accept some cost. It's just a difference in what that cost should be and which regulations actually lower those costs.
 
There should be some exceptions to the rule. For instance one should declare that the beverages are for a party, marriage festival, 4th June/17th February, etc, and get to buy more than usual. Also restaurants suppliers should also be allowed to be issued more than usual drinks since it is for the restaurants.
 
Holy ****ing wall of text, you've got me on several points and I can't really defend many(or rather any) of them.
For that, I hate you. ;)

I was channeling Zyph. :lol:



I was under the impression that the Bill of Rights, was both a restriction on federal and state governments.
With the supremacy doctrine and the 10th amendment, settling that out.

Not originally. Early Supreme court rulings stated otherwise, and the pre-amble of the bill of rights clerly indicates that it was designed ot be a limitation of federal authority over the states. Plus, the Bill of Rights came into existence because of fears that were brought up by anti-federalists over the expansion of federal authority presented by the unammended constitution (thus threatening ratification).






I actually think a background check, to see if the purchaser had priors (DUI, Domestic violence while intoxicated, etc.), would reduce availability of alcohol, to those who are irresponsible.

That would only create underground alcohol sales, probably by the same people who currently sell drugs. There's a high correlation between increased irresponsibility while intoxicated and alcoholism.


And it's entirely possible that limiting the quantity of alcohol one can purchase, as well as the alcohol content, could also reduce the amount of people who commit DUI.

This is actually in effect in many places, but not enforced adequately, either. I could see increasing the punishments for over-serving as being an equivalent comparison to some proposed gun regulations.

Limiting alcohol content, or at least serving size of higher alcohol content, is possible at the local level, unlike many proposed gun regulations of a similar nature, which would need to be put in place federally to really be possible due to the Mcdonald v. Chicago ruling.

That being said, neither approach would be nearly as effective at preventing DUI as mandatory ignition locks in all vehicles would be, though. Since that fits so well with real proposals for gun regulations, I think it works better for comparative purposes.

Actually I designed it based on the comments other made in the gun control thread.

But you tweaked it a bit to match the alcohol argument better, no?

If the intent of people is to save lives (the common comment in gun control threads), then they should have no issue further regulating alcohol to reduces lives lost, as a result of irresponsible drinkers.

And I'd be willing to bet that many, if not most, people who support gun control for that reason would also support increased regulations regarding alcohol and, specifically, DUI's (the biggest threat that alcohol poses to others) for the same reason.


I think, at the very least, the background check carries water.
One can check the background of someone who is a serial violator of laws, in relations to alcohol.

The problem there is logistics. There are so many more purveyors of alcohol than there are purveyors of firearms. Plus the side effect of increasing crime by creating an increased black market for alcohol for those who are alcoholics. They aren't going to quit drinking just because buying it became more difficult. (the addiction factor is also something which changes the equivalencies of proposed regulations)
 
I was channeling Zyph. :lol:

I did read it, fwiw.



Not originally. Early Supreme court rulings stated otherwise, and the pre-amble of the bill of rights clerly indicates that it was designed ot be a limitation of federal authority over the states. Plus, the Bill of Rights came into existence because of fears that were brought up by anti-federalists over the expansion of federal authority presented by the unammended constitution (thus threatening ratification).

Well ****.
I guess if I had my way, I'd have the BOR apply to all states, universally.
Not just for firearms, but for overall legal consistency.

If we have freedom of religion/speech/press in Arizona, it should be so in Maryland.
I know this has already been incorporated, but it could of saved a lot of time doing it this way.
In this aspect, the founders were dumb asses.

That would only create underground alcohol sales, probably by the same people who currently sell drugs. There's a high correlation between increased irresponsibility while intoxicated and alcoholism.

While true, what I realized when searching about prohibition, was that a lot people did legitimately obey the law.
Even those who drank too much, at least that's what I can divine from the reduction in cirrhosis.



This is actually in effect in many places, but not enforced adequately, either. I could see increasing the punishments for over-serving as being an equivalent comparison to some proposed gun regulations.

Limiting alcohol content, or at least serving size of higher alcohol content, is possible at the local level, unlike many proposed gun regulations of a similar nature, which would need to be put in place federally to really be possible due to the Mcdonald v. Chicago ruling.

That being said, neither approach would be nearly as effective at preventing DUI as mandatory ignition locks in all vehicles would be, though. Since that fits so well with real proposals for gun regulations, I think it works better for comparative purposes.

This is true with firearms too.
The ATF has not been pursuing prohibited persons who attempt to buy firearms.
I think that's a parole violation, if I'm not mistaken.

It's definitely a good example, one I'll likely use. :mrgreen:

But you tweaked it a bit to match the alcohol argument better, no?

Yes, attempting to be clever, but at the same time, coming up with something, that could be effective.


And I'd be willing to bet that many, if not most, people who support gun control for that reason would also support increased regulations regarding alcohol and, specifically, DUI's (the biggest threat that alcohol poses to others) for the same reason.

See, I don't know if I agree with that.
Social acceptance of alcohol, imo, is greater than that of firearms.
I think we can gauge that based on public use of both and the popularity of the idea, that prohibition did nothing to stem usage (which is totally incorrect).

I think a lot of people are completing willing to make ideological contradictions on this issue.


The problem there is logistics. There are so many more purveyors of alcohol than there are purveyors of firearms. Plus the side effect of increasing crime by creating an increased black market for alcohol for those who are alcoholics. They aren't going to quit drinking just because buying it became more difficult. (the addiction factor is also something which changes the equivalencies of proposed regulations)

I agree, that is a technical problem.
I think it is an apt comparison of potential regulations though, I think it works and makes sense of the basis of restricting sales, based on prior bad behavior.
 
We know that Prohibition didn't work. Now we profit handsomely from taxing alcohol. An industry that profits handsomely from alcohol has spawned non stop Media efforts to glamorize alcohol. The Media profits handsomely from this glamorization. Let's just legalize everything and not tax it and let nature take its' course. Taxation agencies will fight this, Media will fight this, Corporate Distillers will fight this. Gadzooks, those that profit from the status quo will fight this. That leaves education to teach citizens not only how to make their own intoxicants, but also to teach responsibility regarding those intoxicants. Oh no! I am saying let's get the gov't out of the crack of our asses! I must be insane or I believe in personal responsibility and don't want any more gov't, whose financial support of Military Offense is 60-70% of our budget, interference in raising my children. I think our culture is sufficiently advanced that they can be trusted with personal responsibility.
 
We know that Prohibition didn't work. Now we profit handsomely from taxing alcohol. An industry that profits handsomely from alcohol has spawned non stop Media efforts to glamorize alcohol. The Media profits handsomely from this glamorization. Let's just legalize everything and not tax it and let nature take its' course. Taxation agencies will fight this, Media will fight this, Corporate Distillers will fight this. Gadzooks, those that profit from the status quo will fight this. That leaves education to teach citizens not only how to make their own intoxicants, but also to teach responsibility regarding those intoxicants. Oh no! I am saying let's get the gov't out of the crack of our asses! I must be insane or I believe in personal responsibility and don't want any more gov't, whose financial support of Military Offense is 60-70% of our budget, interference in raising my children. I think our culture is sufficiently advanced that they can be trusted with personal responsibility.

Prohibition did reduce consumption.
While the intent was to eliminate it altogether, it was partially successful.
 
I did read it, fwiw.

And I appreciate it. :mrgreen:




Well ****.
I guess if I had my way, I'd have the BOR apply to all states, universally.
Not just for firearms, but for overall legal consistency.

If we have freedom of religion/speech/press in Arizona, it should be so in Maryland.
I know this has already been incorporated, but it could of saved a lot of time doing it this way.
In this aspect, the founders were dumb asses.

I agree that such basic human rights as freedom of religion should be universal across all of the states (My one exception to my State's rights position is when it is used to subjugate and ostracize minority groups), I disagree that the founders were dumbasses to set things up in a dual federation as they did 9also remember that it was a much, much smaller country back then both in population and square mileage). It's all about my belief that freedom = a larger range of options, though. An overly powerful federal authority, in a country this expansive, acts to limit options rather than increase them. This increases overall disenfranchisement and dissatisfaction with the rules which one is subjected to.



While true, what I realized when searching about prohibition, was that a lot people did legitimately obey the law.

Absolutely. But not as many as you might assume based on the data you have presented (it's incomplete).


Even those who drank too much, at least that's what I can divine from the reduction in cirrhosis.

There are multiple potential confounds here. First, a lot of people who were hardcore alcoholics (the people who get cirrhosis) ended up dying during other alcohol related mishaps (drinking poisonous alcohol, for example, from a bad batch of bathtub gin, especially in rural areas). The other potential confound, not addressed in the article, was that people did not seek treatment for alcohol related illnesses out of fear of prosecution (often irrational).

Data I have looked at in the past indicated that alcohol related deaths overall were relatively unchanged as a group due to a swapping of deaths from things like cirrhosis with deaths from drinking bad black-market alcohol. The point is that looking at the cirrhosis numbers in a vacuum and drawing conclusions based on that little nugget of data is fallacious.





This is true with firearms too.
The ATF has not been pursuing prohibited persons who attempt to buy firearms.
I think that's a parole violation, if I'm not mistaken.

It's definitely a good example, one I'll likely use. :mrgreen:

It's only a parole violation if they are still on parole.



Yes, attempting to be clever, but at the same time, coming up with something, that could be effective.

Which is why the concept has potential, but falls short as it has been presented.



See, I don't know if I agree with that.
Social acceptance of alcohol, imo, is greater than that of firearms.

But social acceptance of firearms is infinitely greater than the social acceptance of DUI (which is the #1 cause of alcohol related deaths by such a large margin that it warrants being the primary target of any and all new regulations with regard to alcohol)

I think we can gauge that based on public use of both and the popularity of the idea, that prohibition did nothing to stem usage (which is totally incorrect).

It'd be more accurate to say that prohibition did nothing to benefit society, nd that it may have had more detrimental effects than beneficial effects. To say that nobody stopped drinking because of prohibition is absurd. But things that are not taken into account when people talk about prohibition "working" are things like the increases seen in drinking rates of minors. This increase makes sense when you think about it though. Law abiding people did not wish to serve minors alcohol for the most part (there are always exceptions, but as a rule it was frowned upon). But once the people who were selling alcohol were all criminals, such moral distinctions went by the wayside. Prohibition actually increases a minor's ability to acquire intoxicants (this is true for drugs today) because of this. Legal purveyors of intoxicants do not want to risk their livelihood for the sake of a few bucks of profit, but when the crime is the same regardless of who you sell your goods to, you won't have the same motivation to not sell to minors.

I think a lot of people are completing willing to make ideological contradictions on this issue.

I'd say that a lot are, as well, but just as many on both sides of the equation are making those contradictions (as my federal vs. state argument demonstrates, considering that the vast majority of people who profess to support state's rights are also people who oppose all forms of gun control, even at the state and local level. Think of it this way, why are so many people in gun permissive states so up in arms about Chicago's gun laws, but will not even bat an eyelid at saying that they support state's rights when it comes to abortion or gay marriage?)



I agree, that is a technical problem.
I think it is an apt comparison of potential regulations though, I think it works and makes sense of the basis of restricting sales, based on prior bad behavior.

I agree that the underlying premise of restricting use based on prior anti-social behavior appears to be identical, but the logistical issue makes background checks fairly practical for one and not the other. I bet that we can come up with some alternative proposals, however, that utilize the same underlying premise and do not have the same logistical problems.

For example, instead of focusing on alcohol sales, perhaps we can look at the sale of motor vehicles (base don DUI being the greatest danger posed by alcohol). Background checks for purchasing vehicles is far more logistically possible. In fact, permanent revocation of one's drivers license is already a punishment for those who are serial DUI offenders, but nothing is currently done to prevent them from procuring a vehicle, so it is pretty much identical in nature to the firearm background check, when you think about it. My guess, though, is that many people who support background checks for firearms would also support such background checks for vehicles. Personally, I have no problem with such a thing becoming mandatory. They could even make it so that anyone who sells a car themselves would have to make a photocopy of the purchaser's drivers license to make sure that the purchaser presented what appeared to be a valid drivers license.
 
I agree that such basic human rights as freedom of religion should be universal across all of the states (My one exception to my State's rights position is when it is used to subjugate and ostracize minority groups), I disagree that the founders were dumbasses to set things up in a dual federation as they did 9also remember that it was a much, much smaller country back then both in population and square mileage). It's all about my belief that freedom = a larger range of options, though. An overly powerful federal authority, in a country this expansive, acts to limit options rather than increase them. This increases overall disenfranchisement and dissatisfaction with the rules which one is subjected to.

Oh I agree.
I think the BOR should be universal for all states, but yes you're right about the states rights and more options.

Absolutely. But not as many as you might assume based on the data you have presented (it's incomplete).

True.
I wish there was more complete data.



There are multiple potential confounds here. First, a lot of people who were hardcore alcoholics (the people who get cirrhosis) ended up dying during other alcohol related mishaps (drinking poisonous alcohol, for example, from a bad batch of bathtub gin, especially in rural areas). The other potential confound, not addressed in the article, was that people did not seek treatment for alcohol related illnesses out of fear of prosecution (often irrational).

Data I have looked at in the past indicated that alcohol related deaths overall were relatively unchanged as a group due to a swapping of deaths from things like cirrhosis with deaths from drinking bad black-market alcohol. The point is that looking at the cirrhosis numbers in a vacuum and drawing conclusions based on that little nugget of data is fallacious.

Sound argument.


It's only a parole violation if they are still on parole.

True.
I know if a prohibited person lies on the 4473 form, it illegal, but if they don't and try anyway, that I'm not sure of.



Which is why the concept has potential, but falls short as it has been presented.

I'm trying. :x



But social acceptance of firearms is infinitely greater than the social acceptance of DUI (which is the #1 cause of alcohol related deaths by such a large margin that it warrants being the primary target of any and all new regulations with regard to alcohol)

Perhaps steeper punishments are necessary, for the misuse of both.
But really I'm not sure.


It'd be more accurate to say that prohibition did nothing to benefit society, nd that it may have had more detrimental effects than beneficial effects. To say that nobody stopped drinking because of prohibition is absurd. But things that are not taken into account when people talk about prohibition "working" are things like the increases seen in drinking rates of minors. This increase makes sense when you think about it though. Law abiding people did not wish to serve minors alcohol for the most part (there are always exceptions, but as a rule it was frowned upon). But once the people who were selling alcohol were all criminals, such moral distinctions went by the wayside. Prohibition actually increases a minor's ability to acquire intoxicants (this is true for drugs today) because of this. Legal purveyors of intoxicants do not want to risk their livelihood for the sake of a few bucks of profit, but when the crime is the same regardless of who you sell your goods to, you won't have the same motivation to not sell to minors.

That's a great case too.

I'd say that a lot are, as well, but just as many on both sides of the equation are making those contradictions (as my federal vs. state argument demonstrates, considering that the vast majority of people who profess to support state's rights are also people who oppose all forms of gun control, even at the state and local level. Think of it this way, why are so many people in gun permissive states so up in arms about Chicago's gun laws, but will not even bat an eyelid at saying that they support state's rights when it comes to abortion or gay marriage?)

It's definitely ideologically inconsistent.



I agree that the underlying premise of restricting use based on prior anti-social behavior appears to be identical, but the logistical issue makes background checks fairly practical for one and not the other. I bet that we can come up with some alternative proposals, however, that utilize the same underlying premise and do not have the same logistical problems.

Have "No Alcohol" printed on an ID?
Easy to make, of course fake ID's can overcome it, but it's far more realistic than NCIS for alcohol purchases.

For example, instead of focusing on alcohol sales, perhaps we can look at the sale of motor vehicles (base don DUI being the greatest danger posed by alcohol). Background checks for purchasing vehicles is far more logistically possible. In fact, permanent revocation of one's drivers license is already a punishment for those who are serial DUI offenders, but nothing is currently done to prevent them from procuring a vehicle, so it is pretty much identical in nature to the firearm background check, when you think about it. My guess, though, is that many people who support background checks for firearms would also support such background checks for vehicles. Personally, I have no problem with such a thing becoming mandatory. They could even make it so that anyone who sells a car themselves would have to make a photocopy of the purchaser's drivers license to make sure that the purchaser presented what appeared to be a valid drivers license.

Likely to work, they can already run credit checks, a background check wouldn't be that difficult.
 
Red wine is good for your heart and your prostate too. Can't say that about a bullet.

I had never considered offering assailants a glass of red wine rather than free access to my prostate, wife or daughter. You may be on to something. By showing concern for their heart and prostate, you can avoid a more serious confrontation. Liberals take note!

A bullet is absolutely good for my heart and prostate if it's my heart and prostate being threatened. Not so good for the bad guy though.
My life > bad guys life.
 
Back
Top Bottom