Student gets visit from Homeland Security over "Red" library book

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by arsenal

Nissan Skyline, Lancer Evolution are 2 of them. While it is perfectly OK to import a vehicle that is 15 years old. What sense does that make? I figure the older cars are going to be more dangerous than the newer ones.

That is not a "safety" issue actually. That is in place so people buy cars from Canadian dealers and not other countries. ie Japan and Europe mostly. I guess it is suppose to protect the economy.

Side note: I'm pretty sure the Skyline is only available from Japan.

[arsenal]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Also, you may not care that you are being monitored, but I do. The old " what do I care if they are watching me, I have nothing to hide" just doesn't cut it. That is not freedom.

That is correct. So what is the difference if the Government monitors our every step, or doesn't monitor us, but guides us in the "correct" direction through restrictions?
To me, it is pretty much the same thing. You may see a difference, but I don't.

[arsenal]

Originally Posted by Burninator

That is not a "safety" issue actually. That is in place so people buy cars from Canadian dealers and not other countries. ie Japan and Europe mostly. I guess it is suppose to protect the economy.

Side note: I'm pretty sure the Skyline is only available from Japan.

No actually, you can import the skyline to the US, and convert it to conform to the US regulations. You cannot in turn import a US regulated Skyline into Canada.
But the Skyline will be in Canada in a year, so I guess it is a moot point.

As far as the Evolution goes, it is a safety issue. It fails the 8 km/h crash test. The intercooler is damaged. Since Mitsubishi is available to purchase in Canada.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by arsenal

That is correct. So what is the difference if the Government monitors our every step, or doesn't monitor us, but guides us in the "correct" direction through restrictions?
To me, it is pretty much the same thing. You may see a difference, but I don't.

The difference is that if the government makes it hard or illegal for me to buy a handgun or some reefer they are making sure it is hard for me to buy a handgun or some reefer.

If they are watching my e-mail and bank account on the off-chance I might want some weed and a pistol then that is a lot more " 1984-ish" than just plain old banning weed or handguns.

Can you clarify your argument a bit please? As far as I can tell you are saying the government shouldn't be allowed to make choices for us but they should have the power to spy on us and arrest us for something they don't want us to be doing.

[arsenal]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

The difference is that if the government makes it hard or illegal for me to buy a handgun or some reefer they are making sure it is hard for me to buy a handgun or some reefer.

If they are watching my e-mail and bank account on the off-chance I might want some weed and a pistol then that is a lot more " 1984-ish" than just plain old banning weed or handguns.

Can you clarify your argument a bit please? As far as I can tell you are saying the government shouldn't be allowed to make choices for us but they should have the power to spy on us and arrest us for something they don't want us to be doing.

But the result is the same. Your option, you don't even have the option to purchase a hand gun. But again, to reiterate, this just isn't about hand guns. Why not ban fast food? It doesn't help any one. Just makes people un-healthy, and causes strain on the health care system.
You are selecting things that are already either illegal or easy to argue from the moral high ground. What happens when the government decides that something that is already a major part of our life, and is perfectly legal becomes illegal because it is considered "bad" for us?

Do I think the government should be spying on it's citizens? No. Unless it is in the case of national security. Then yes. Should they be spying on your bank account? Nope. Should banks be alert authorities if you all of a sudden have hundreds of thousands of dollars in your bank account for no apparent reason? Yes. That is suspicous activity.
You're suggesting that these scenarios shouldn't even be possible, as they will be blocked before it even happens.

[Flame On]

I can't believe you're saying that governments shouldn't ban hand guns because "they believe" they are bad for us, in comparison with say a Big Mac! It's like those foolish enough to propose guns are the same as cars or kitchen knives. One is meant for it's purpose the other is specifically meant to kill or near kill. Fast food in moderation is fine, no ammount of bullets in your body is fine!
You're using an unreasonable item being banned in here to maintain the US is freer, while at the same time confusing government restrictions with economic maneuvering in regards to cars coming into the country. Maybe you should be saying corporations makes us less free because of the canadian content rules; wherever they may be in place from the car industry to magazines.
But as for the day to day operations of myself in the country, I like the idea of a proggressive government and one that doesn't watch me while I'm on the pot!! Sure that may change if I was directly associated with devastating terror attacks I might feel like that's protection.

[arsenal]

Originally Posted by Flame On

I can't believe you're saying that governments shouldn't ban hand guns because "they believe" they are bad for us, in comparison with say a Big Mac! It's like those foolish enough to propose guns are the same as cars or kitchen knives. One is meant for it's purpose the other is specifically meant to kill or near kill. Fast food in moderation is fine, no ammount of bullets in your body is fine!

One could argue that no amount of fast food is good for your body, and eventually will kill you. I actually don't beleive this, but all it takes is enough lobbying from some health food nuts for this to become reality. Am I saying that it is going to happen, no. Is it even likely? No, I don't think so.

Originally Posted by Flame On

You're using an unreasonable item being banned in here to maintain the US is freer, while at the same time confusing government restrictions with economic maneuvering in regards to cars coming into the country. Maybe you should be saying corporations makes us less free because of the canadian content rules; wherever they may be in place from the car industry to magazines.

Umm, Transport Canada actually sets the rules regarding such things as reasonable crash tests etc.
http://www.tc.gc.ca/RoadSafety/Reg/Reg_e.htm
Looks like that is Government body to me.

Originally Posted by Flame On

But as for the day to day operations of myself in the country, I like the idea of a proggressive government and one that doesn't watch me while I'm on the pot!! Sure that may change if I was directly associated with devastating terror attacks I might feel like that's protection.

So, as long as you are not directly associated or affected by a devastating terror attack, then they should back off. But if you where directly affected, then you would be asking, why didn't the government do anything to stop it. How do you suggest they attempt to stop it, if they cannot monitor said terrorists?
Do you think the government actually cares when Joe Blow is taking a ****, when he goes to pick up his kids, and what he ate for breakfast? I highly doubt that.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by arsenal

I never said controlling who recieves a weapon shouldn't be controlled. Do I think a mentally unstable person should have access to weapons? Nope. Should I have access to weapons if I am a responsable adult? Yep.

If you take away weapons from those incapable of using them, why do you need access to weapons if you are a responsible adult? Unless you are a hunter, and live off the land, why do you need a weapon of any sort? You kind of defeat your case.

Unfortunately there are plenty of people out there that are very responsible, that have guns, and make irrational decisions during moments of weakness and kill others because of their access to the weapon. These same people would still likely find another weapon other than a gun to do harm to another, but it would at least give the victim a fighting chance for survival. Very seldom does someone survive an attack from a gunman.

Again, it is not so much the hand guns persay, it is the principle. I am sure you read over the rest of the posts here, and chose to ignore them. If you are going to ban hand guns, becuase they can be used to irresponsible people to kill other people. Then you better ban cars and alchohol as well. Becuase those are used by irresponsible people to kill other other people.

That is one of the weakest arguments I have ever heard in my life, and one of the stupidest too boot. Ban cars because "drunk drivers" kill people. Uh huh. Cars are designed to transport people, and when used appropriately do that without little damage to others. Only through the irresponsible use of a vehicle do they kill. Guns, OTOH, are designed for one purpose. To KILL. Even in the hands of the most expert marksmen attempting to just wound, a gun shot is very likely going to kill the recipient of the bullet. Guns were designed to kill, plain and simple.

So, wouldn't you like watch and view what you choose? And not have it fed to you? You of all people would love this, since you are the biggest proponent of free speech on this board are you not?

Guess what, I don't get to watch and view what I choose in the United States either. The airways in the US are just as regulated as they are in Canada. While I firmly believe in free speech I also am a staunch believer in doing what is best for society. Getting those who would spread disinformation and lies off the airways (that means YOU FoxNEWS, hehe) and those that promote hate and intolerance (that means YOU Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh, hehe) is a service to the common good of the community. I support that fully. There is a very fine line between free speech and dispersion of hateful rhetoric. I think it is wise to have a body in place that guards against those incidents from happening.

But they don't exist in all states. The states that they do exist in are Dem states.

Bull****! Florida is a Dem state? Better tell Jeb Bush (a NeoConservative) that his state is really blue, and not the deep crimson red he likes to promote. But nice try in turning your little tirade into a Democrat versus Republican or Liberal versus Conservative battle.

Nissan Skyline, Lancer Evolution are 2 of them. While it is perfectly OK to import a vehicle that is 15 years old. What sense does that make? I figure the older cars are going to be more dangerous than the newer ones.

So you're offended that a car which doesn't meet safety standards is not allowed into the country? How do you enjoy driving around your '76 Pinto anyways?

I never said Day Care is bad. One where the only choice is a government funded, controlled day care is bad. Again, another choice made for me, by the Government.

Sometimes choices have to be made for you by the government. You know, like spending a trillion dollars on defense. Last time I looked that wasn't on my shopping list of needs, but do you see me ****ing in the pool because the government sees the value in that? Personally I think they should reconsider and spend some of that money on day care and heath care. I think its more wise in trying to keep your OWN citizens a live, and improve their lifestyle, than invade other countries and kill others. But hey, that's just me. A humanist until the bitter end.

What do I care if what I am doing in my life is being monitored? I still have the freedom to do what I choose. If I happen to do something illegal, the chances of me getting caught are greater. Right now, there are still alot of freedoms available to me. They are still waiting for me to commit the crime, before arresting me. The flip side is controlling and conditioning people so that they cannot commit crimes.

Wait a second? You have been rambling on about personal freedoms, yet you think its okay that the government eavedrops on everything you say or do? And you think that doesn't curb your freedoms? WTF is freedom to you? Shooting a gun is freedom, but having a conversation free from prying earing is not? Man, you have one ****ed up sense of reality. When you can't have a conversation with someone without it being monitored you have lost all you personal personal freedoms and civil liberties, no matter how many guns you have stashed in your closet. Thinking otherwise is just... undescribable!

[Superfraggle]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Actually you would have to outlaw vehicles.

Thats what those that say handguns need to have even more control would HAVE to argue.

Hardly. You're oversimplifying things. Sure both have the potential to kill, but that has to be weighed against their benefits as well. Benefits to having vehicles are obvious. What major benefit does a handgun have outside of killing people? None that I know of.

Also, people who are planning to kill someone are more likely to use a gun than a car. Not that it doesn't happen, but the majority of deaths by automobile are not intended.