2nd Amendment Protest

"".....well Ive been in restaurants that have smoking and non smoking sections and generally, they both smell pretty much like smoking sections.""----- Must have been not set up right. I've been in MANY restraunts with smoking/non smoking and it worked there...

""It would be nice if we could all respect eachother but not everyone is going to buy into that. Thats an idealist point of view, not really very viable.""----Actually it's a realistic point of view and those who can't "buy into" simple respect for others are what is causing so many laws and bans to be made, and they probably simply need some re-education in common manners...

""Look, people CHOOSE to smoke. no one ever chose to be black. Thats actually very insensitve of you to compare the two things.""--- Is it? How can it be insensitive to be angered by someone having their human rights taken away?

""The fact is, smoker or non smoker, you're allowed to go anywhere you want. You just can't light up anywhere you want! Its not prejudice at all. Its about creating a healthier more pleasant environment. You tihnk we should just go back to having people smoke on airplanes etc..??""---- Why do people who disagree have to go the all or nothing route? This philosophy demands that we must create a healthier environment for ALL, even those who don't give a rats ass if they are healthy or not. We must FORCE people to be healthy and do the "right" things so the REST of us can be happy. We cannot allow people to have a choice of smoking or non. We cannot allow people to have ANY choices as they are far too stupid and childish to know what respecting others means..... I am so glad I don't "buy into" THAT!

""Yea tabacco has been consumed by humans for centuries...but guess what, a little thing called modern medicine has changed things a bit. We now know that smoking is deadly, and if it doesn't kill you it will lower your quality of life. Im not trying to demonize tabacco, but you can't convince me that the tabacco industry isn't a sleezy one, and that the people who make millions off of customers who they are killing aren't pretty damn disgusting.""--- Not trying to say the tobacco company isn't sleazy. Not trying to say smoking isn't bad for people. Actually, I think the BIGGEST sleaze factor is that they sell you their cigs using any means necessary to get your dollar, then they tell you, now that you are addicted to smoking the cigs they pushed at you, that they might kill you and you can't do it anywhere unless you stay away from everybody else like you have the plague. The plague that THEY, by the way, gave you...

I've looked into the history of tobacco use. It seems that down thru history, tobacco was looked at as anything from a "sacred herb" (Native Americans) to a "healthful herb" (Colonial settlers) I understand that back in THOSE days there were not CHEMICAL ADDITIVES AND PRESERVATIVES added to the tobacco. Could it be that the MODERN DAY cigs ARE much worse for you than the old fashioned ones?

""You just seem to be ignoring a lot of things and sticking to your guns (ideals) and not really looking at the bigger picture.
You can't use the jail system to back up your beliefs. Our criminal justice system lets some people slide and won't cut others a break, and yes its racist.""----I'm not at all sure what you are getting at here. Our criminal justice system is completely WORTHLESS, for just about anything. It has for all intents and purposes completely fallen apart, due in part to the overload of so many excess or bad laws and rules. They just can't admit it yet...

""You seem to think that just because I support gun control and smoking bans, that I am a big fan of big brother getting into all our business and completely running our lives. You're making it about something that it isn't. I am one of the biggest critics of the government and them invading our privacy, but it doesn't mean that I will support "smoking rights" or anything else just out of spite.""---Unfortunately, You can't have it both ways. Having strong ideals is exactly that. If you hate the government sticking their noses into all our business and invading our privacy, then how can you support making more useless laws that require them to stick their noses in our business and invade our privacy? That is just plain wishywashy. No strong ideals there. Why do yu try to make it seem as if "strong ideals" were a BAD thing? I think ALL our founding fathers had "strong ideals" which they stuck by, by the way. If all these rules, bans, and laws were FOUNDED on MUTUAL RESPECT instead of using force to get your way, the world would be a much nicer place.

 

eh whatever. You dont understand me. I have strong ideals. I don't shun people who smoke, drink, do drugs, etc...and I don't think we should. And I don't hold my beliefs on tabacco/gun control soley because of what I want. When i said that most people wouldn't buy into respecting others, its not because I wouldn't. I already do! Its because I know that many people won't. That is a fact.

Our founding fathers had some strong ideals, yes. They also didn't have it all figured out. They had slaves for God's sake! My point being, you might have learned that "strong ideals" was a great respectable thing, and I wouldn't disagree, but if they are the WRONG ideals, then you should expect some scrutiny.

Lets revisit the Blacks vs smokers issue...You sort of avoided the issue I was getting at. You were comparing a huge population of people who have had BASIC human rights denied to them for centuries and had no say in the matter one way or the other to a group of people who have ALL their basic human rights (you see, smoking in public is not a basic human right) and who choose to use a product which society is starting to dislike because of its obvious health concerns for users and people they are around. LADY WAKE UP! 2nd hand smoke causes cancer!!! Do you think that Children whos parents bring them to smoking establishments have any say in the matter?? No, but they still suffer the health consequences. GET THIS THROUGH YOUR HEAD...You're talking about supporting lesser social rights (public smoking indoors) instead of supporting BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS (if you can't look at it any other way, then think of a child's right to be healthy) I mean what the hell?? Can't you see that certain laws actually PROTECT OUR FREEDOM/RIGHTS. Certainly there are many that infringe on them too, but come on...
"you can't have it both ways" actually, i can have it whatever way I want. "whishy washy" Im not a fake political candidate that has to keep his opinions consistent with what the media thinks is acceptable. Im a normal US citizen who has different beliefs on each seperate issue, because I have half a brain...Honestly, you accused me of having no ideals, and on what grounds? its asinine.

 

okay well if thats what she meant than I would agree. That seems fair enough

 

Exactly!!!! Funny, I thought I was perfectly clear...

 

I'm a smoker man. I still live with my folks but my mom's allergic to the smoke so I take my habit outside. (I take it outside anyway no matter where I am unless it is a smokers house I'm in) I agree wholeheartedly with the idea that the owner should be able to decide an' the individuals too. But what I don't agree with is the way so many people shun smokers. Especially those of us who do our best to keep the 2nd hand away from them man. I hate that lil aspect of the smoke free society stuff man. I respect their wishes an' their health they can at least respect my choices an' my wishes, instead of treatin' me like some kind of rabid animal man.

 

I agree with you 100%! The day ANY amendment of the constitution is thrown out is the day liberty dies.

 

Why is the bill of rights even up for debate, these are the freedoms and rights that were considered so important that they had to be listed just to make sure.

 

You're out of touch with reality. Apparently you would prefer that only criminals have guns. And how do you recommend we stand up for ourselves against the government if the sht ever hits the fan. And what about the drug addict who is no longer afraid to break into your house while you are home, because he knows you don't have a gun?

 

2nd hand smoke does NOT cause cancer. The studies that those beliefs are based on are total BS. Even mythbusters debunked that crap. Quit believing the crap you here in the media.

 

Here is a tobacco question for ya. They say that second hand smoke is SO bad for ya. In fact, some studies say it's worse for you than if you were doing the actual smoking yourself...
They say that nicotine, among other things, is SO physically addictive.... OK, so, I live in an environment where almost EVERYBODY smokes. Have for many years. I don't even like the smell, never have. I breathe second hand smoke every single day of my life. Now, WHY am I not ADDICTED to the second hand smoke???? Not only am I NOT addicted, but it BOTHERS me more and more as I get older. What's up with THAT? But in all that, the smoke that causes me the most coughing and bronchial trouble AIN'T tobacco...

 

okay. So you think 2nd hand smoke is good for you? By itself, it does not cause cancer Im sure.. but it certainly increases your risk. HAHA you say "don't believe everything you hear in the media" and you site MYTHBUSTERS as your source!! very credible indeed!! Give me a break!

Earthmother,
2nd hand smoke isn't worse for you than actual smoking...Or at least that just doesn't make sense to me on any level.And Of course, smokers get 2nd hand smoke as well.
Of course you're not addicted to 2nd hand smoke. Addiction requires at least some level of pleasure from the behavior.
I actually like the smell of some tabacco quite a bit. My great grandpa used to smoke a pipe and I enjoyed that smell. But yea, Mary Jane can be harsh, but a pleasant smell as well, in my opinion.

 

I didn't say it was good for you. I only stated the fact that it has not been proven to cause cancer. Do some research and you will find the truth. My facts come from scientists that were trying to prove that it did cause cancer and failed miserably.

You're right second hand smoke does increase your risk of cancer. However, not as much as traveling in a car your whole life does. The exhaust that you inhale is far worse for you. But I don't see us banning riding in cars. It's total BS!

 

there are definitely inconsistancies in our societal goals. Oil companies have a lot of power and stand to lose almost everything if we were to introduce healthier and more economic fuel alternatives. The fact is that Americans have a lot of pollutants to deal with...and We're not banning riding in cars because if we did our economy would collapse overnight. And we actually haven't banned smoking and I doubt we ever will. we have banned indoor public smoking.

I already granted you the fact that 2nd hand smoking does not cause cancer by itself. I don't think that has been conclusively proven beyond a doubt in all cases, but the evidence is strong enough that I will give that one to you. But remember, cancer is not the only thing smoking causes...asthma, emphisima, breathing difficulties...Those are worthy of our concern as well. And the fact that society at large isn't tackling some other major health or environmental concerns as seriously as it is smoking, it still doesn't make it good for you.

 

Good post. I can get behind this one

 

*stares in disbelief as the topic shifts from guns to tobacco*
if you were to ban guns, you'd make a lot of otherwise law abiding citizens into criminals. all the while, the real criminals can still get guns. not to mention that if everyone surrendered their guns, a fascist take over would face no resistance whatsoever.
my two cents : P

 

Now that we're back on subject...please see signature.

 

Your signature quote is from 1787...You realize that it is the 21st century right? You also realize that gun control is not the same as a gun ban? And that if the US is going to have a dictator, they have one right now. At what point would you take up arms against the gov? First of all, it would be stupid and futile because you would get shut down in a heartbeat. Secondly, you can always get guns on the black market, and those are the kinds of weapons you would need to put up any significant resistance. Hand guns and semi-autos will not get you very far at all. Furthermore you're tihnking in extremes. Civilian warfare inside the US? I think instead of focusing our efforts into keeping that slim possibility alive we might think about shifting our concerns to dealing with issues that will make this country a better place to live and a better example/force around the world? Seems obvious to me

 

SO WHAT if that quote is from 1787??? Are you ACTUALLY trying to say that the FOUNDING FATHERS of this country don't matter because they were alive "a long time ago"?

What about certain other ideas that they had? I'm SURE you support the freedoms of speech, assembly, and the press, right? Well I've got news for you, those ideas are over 200 hundred years old!!! Maybe we need to get rid of them, seeing as it's 'the 21st century'.

Ugh.

 

Thanks Michael. I'm not sure I could have put it that well.

 

I just wanted to re-iterate some things that k7leetha posted earlier in this topic.

You just can't argue with stats like these (but you're free to bury your head in the sand if you like).



I Own Firearms Because History Says I Should:

13) 1911: Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to

1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves,
were rounded up and exterminated.

14) 1929: Soviet Union established gun
control. From 1929
to 1953, about 40-60 million citizens, unable to defend
themselves, were rounded up and exterminated or starved
to death.

15) 1935: China established gun control. From 1948 to 1952,
20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves,
were rounded up and exterminated.

16) 1938: Germany established gun control. From 1939 to
1945, 13 million Jews, Catholics and others who were unable
to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

17a) 1956: Cambodia established gun control. From 1975
to 1977, one million 'educated' people, unable to defend
themselves, were rounded up and exterminated."

17b) In 1957 Castro came to power backed by the Citizens of Cuba and
in his first year in power he told the Cuban people, We are a peacable
people and we do not need guns. Most Cubans foolishly turned in their
guns to the Castro government, Then he announced he was a Communist and
they were all screwed for the next 50 years + !

18) 1964: Guatemala established gun control. From 1964
to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend
themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

19) 1966-1976: China still has gun control. Another 50 to
100 million civilians, unable to defend themselves, were
killed in Mao Tse Tung's "Cultural Revolution".

20) 1970: Uganda established gun control. From 1971 to
1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves,
were rounded up and exterminated.

21) 1990s: Rwanda established gun control. In a span of
100 days in April 1994, 800,000 people who were unable to
defend themselves were massacred to death - most by
machetes. How many dead, hacked-up bodies do you think
were found holding a loaded gun? (answer is less than one)

22) 1992: Los Angeles California, USA. For three days police
stood by and watched, unable to stop the rioting, arson and
destruction of whole neighborhoods. Yet many Korean stores
were virtually untouched - protected by their well-armed
storeowners who exercised their right to self-defense through
their right to keep and bear arms and who did for themselves
what the police were unwilling or unable to do.


-------------
"The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains
evil interference; they deserve a place of honor with all that's
good." ~ George Washington.


"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those
who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes"
~ Thomas Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria.


"Criminals fear victims holding guns, not victims holding
phones."