Loaded guns are fine in most places as long as responsible adults are the ones carrying them, LAWFULLY, as demonstrated by the various background checks and permits that we already have in place. This isn't even up for debate. The constitution is clear.
You can have a gun on a goat
You can have a gun in a boat
You can have a gun in your house
You can have a gun near a mouse
You can have a gun inside your den
You can have a gun to anger a dem
Public Opinion Says Loaded Guns in Cars Are OK [INFOGRAPHIC]
SodaHead Infographics
2011/08/26 23:00:00
Earlier this week we asked SodaHeads what they thought about keeping a loaded gun in the car, and the results are in.
SodaHeads overwhelmingly decided that keeping a loaded gun in the car should be your legal right, and that majority spanned across a huge range of demographics. However, there were still a few statistics that stood out to us.
For instance, ever wonder what exactly the difference between a "liberal" and "progressive" is? Looking at their responses to this question, liberals are far more likely to concede gun control than progressives. In fact, liberals were markedly in support of allowing loaded guns in cars.
The original question was tied to a recent incident involving a clumsy gun-owner on a Tennessee highway who accidentally shot himself, but that didn't deter votes in the least.
Wanna find out more? Hold your breath, and get ready for another Deep Dive infographic -- powered by SodaHead.
(For clarity's sake, we counted "only in the trunk" responses as a yes.)

SodaHeads overwhelmingly decided that keeping a loaded gun in the car should be your legal right, and that majority spanned across a huge range of demographics. However, there were still a few statistics that stood out to us.
For instance, ever wonder what exactly the difference between a "liberal" and "progressive" is? Looking at their responses to this question, liberals are far more likely to concede gun control than progressives. In fact, liberals were markedly in support of allowing loaded guns in cars.
The original question was tied to a recent incident involving a clumsy gun-owner on a Tennessee highway who accidentally shot himself, but that didn't deter votes in the least.
Wanna find out more? Hold your breath, and get ready for another Deep Dive infographic -- powered by SodaHead.
(For clarity's sake, we counted "only in the trunk" responses as a yes.)

![Public Opinion Says Loaded Guns in Cars Are OK [INFOGRAPHIC] Public Opinion Says Loaded Guns in Cars Are OK [INFOGRAPHIC]](http://images.sodahead.com/polls/002112943/infographic-54399676329_xlarge.png)

![Thanksgiving: The Reason for the Season [INFOGRAPHIC] Thanksgiving: The Reason for the Season [INFOGRAPHIC]](http://images.sodahead.com/polls/003329051/thanksgiving-93109325925_crop.png)

![A Fourth of the Population Has Stolen From the Grocery Store [INFOGRAPHIC] A Fourth of the Population Has Stolen From the Grocery Store [INFOGRAPHIC]](http://images.sodahead.com/polls/003194651/stealing-88440771717_crop.png)
















;-)
I must argue, however, that there is a vast difference between sex & rape. Rape really only uses sex as its tool to express power, domination, control & violence (physical, mental & emotional). When one person forces another to perform a sexual activity, when consent is not present between all parties involved, that is rape. Sex is the tool. All forms of rape equal violence, even when the activity itself isn't necessarily violent. But rape does absolutely not equal sex.
Secondly, when I say rape, I mean violent, forceful rape. You don't just get locked up for an accusation. You go to trial. Most women are evaluated by a doctor for vaginal tearing, bruising, semen samples, etc. There may have been witnesses or a camera.
How bizarre. You are okay with rape but not okay with consensual oral sex?
But he is looking at the world from a radically different perspective. One that's worth at least a little thought. If only because it *is* so different than most. My opinions about your points:
1) Mostly irrelevant. Though this sort of thing would probably require everyone to spread out and be members of much smaller communities. People just were not meant to live packed together like sardines.
2) Why would muggers make the effort? If everyone has all they want, the only reason for mugging anyone else (or any other sort of theft for that matter), is the sick pleasure of being a bully. If your community is small enough that everyone knows everyone else, people like this won't last long.
3) He *is* talking about a world of abundance. Why would anyone bother looting if they could just get whatever they wanted without any real effort?
4) The *vast* majority of "criminals" have no victims. "Our" legal system doesn't really benefit anyone except the lawyers and the megacorps. It is a failure. There are tons of alternatives we could (and should) try.
5) Back to #2. If there's enough to go around for everybody, there isn't any real reason ...
But he is looking at the world from a radically different perspective. One that's worth at least a little thought. If only because it *is* so different than most. My opinions about your points:
1) Mostly irrelevant. Though this sort of thing would probably require everyone to spread out and be members of much smaller communities. People just were not meant to live packed together like sardines.
2) Why would muggers make the effort? If everyone has all they want, the only reason for mugging anyone else (or any other sort of theft for that matter), is the sick pleasure of being a bully. If your community is small enough that everyone knows everyone else, people like this won't last long.
3) He *is* talking about a world of abundance. Why would anyone bother looting if they could just get whatever they wanted without any real effort?
4) The *vast* majority of "criminals" have no victims. "Our" legal system doesn't really benefit anyone except the lawyers and the megacorps. It is a failure. There are tons of alternatives we could (and should) try.
5) Back to #2. If there's enough to go around for everybody, there isn't any real reason to steal anything from anybody else. If anyone's going hungry, it's because so is everyone else.
6) This is true. Since before recorded history, people have been telling each other "Thou shalt not..." and then going ahead and doing it anyway and getting punished for it. The punishment is a slight deterrent, but it obviously isn't very effective. It seems to me that a common sense approach, focused on restitution for the victim might have a much better chance at success. If that doesn't work, recognize that, note it, and try something else.
There *are* ways for people to live together mostly in peace. The proof is that they did so for so long. We've just mostly forgotten what they are.
If you haven't seen it, "The Gods Must Be Crazy" is well worth watching and thinking about.
This is a perfect example of why a one-size-fits-all society is doomed. We can agree to disagree. If we can get enough people to do that, we can set up our tribes (or join existing tribes that make sense to us) and find out which sets of rules are the most successful for us.
That was the original theory behind having different sovereign States with a very small and limited federal government. Let the States experiment and find out the best approach to a given problem for them. If one successful meme is obviously a winner, the rest can mimic it. If not, it isn't a big deal.
That's the main theme behind the Daniel Quinn books, BTW. The entire reason our culture is so screwed up is that everybody believes there's One Right Way for everyone to live. If we can just find that, everyone will be happy. We've been trying this for 10,000 years now, and we've almost wiped out all the other cultures and their knowledge and experience about hundreds of thousands of years of a way to live that works for them (which ours really doesn't, for us). (Not to mention all the species we're driving extinct along the way).
Personally, I don't ha...
This is a perfect example of why a one-size-fits-all society is doomed. We can agree to disagree. If we can get enough people to do that, we can set up our tribes (or join existing tribes that make sense to us) and find out which sets of rules are the most successful for us.
That was the original theory behind having different sovereign States with a very small and limited federal government. Let the States experiment and find out the best approach to a given problem for them. If one successful meme is obviously a winner, the rest can mimic it. If not, it isn't a big deal.
That's the main theme behind the Daniel Quinn books, BTW. The entire reason our culture is so screwed up is that everybody believes there's One Right Way for everyone to live. If we can just find that, everyone will be happy. We've been trying this for 10,000 years now, and we've almost wiped out all the other cultures and their knowledge and experience about hundreds of thousands of years of a way to live that works for them (which ours really doesn't, for us). (Not to mention all the species we're driving extinct along the way).
Personally, I don't have any problems with alternative sex practices. The people who practice them may very well have severe chemical imbalances, or just be genetic dead-ends. Whatever. I understand that they don't have any control over what turns them on, and they don't want to be "fixed," (even if that ever becomes possible) so I'm not going to get upset about it. AFAIC, the only "real" sex organ is the brain.
Like you, I'd probably draw the line at pedophilia. Is it always, inevitably harmful to the kid? I don't know. Parts of our culture have practiced it pretty openly for hundreds of years at least. I don't like those parts, but it's something that worked for them.
As for the magic age of 13, that's as arbitrary as 18. I figure the actual age should be puberty, but that seems wrong to me as well. The idea of old men having sex with a battered screaming 13 year old just strikes me as disturbing as Hell.
Maybe that's the criteria for rape: was it consensual? Maybe there isn't any way to avoid false accusations is to get a time-stamped recording of her agreeing before-hand. That seems to be the direction we're heading now. With those thugs in costumes treating the victims as if it were their fault (I know your stance that it was).
If the social stigma against sex goes totally away, there will be far fewer reasons for people to accuse falsely. It isn't a perfect solution, but that's sort of the point.
There *is* no perfect solution to all our problems. There are just ways to live that work.
The key seems to have been realizing that what works well for one tribe isn't necessarily going to work well for another. Sure, neighboring tribes might squabble over land (for example, if one of them was dealing with a drought). And there was a little intra-tribal violence.
But nothing at all like what modern people have to deal with. And (as far as we know) the tribes never tried to force their customs on one another. That's a relatively modern innovation, and it's malignant.
Sean's talking about a society where there wouldn't be any reason for you to worry about keeping what you already have, because you could easily replace it on a whim.
I think it would be silly to give up your arms because, hey, humans will always be human. But the overall theme is interesting to contemplate.
I don't pretend this is "The Right Answer". But it's interesting to think about.
*
Lets outlaw Knives
Axes
Saws
sticks.......and trees
Water (drowning)
Food (choking)
High places.................ETC. See how stupid your idea is?
Lets take all these firearms out of existence,ant idea how many thousands of jobs going with them? http://www.nssf.org/PDF/2010E...
And you can bet there are a lot more. I would say anyone that doesn't think firearms are no good for personal defense is the delusional one with a capitol D.
overall the gun laws are bad
http://www.sodahead.com/user/...
but again i don't have to life with those laws
What part of the 2nd Amendment don't you understand?
"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
****Case closed.****
Did you just ignore that first part? All political viewpoints agree that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of the government to maintain an armed militia to protect the nation, not that it guarantees the right of all persons to own/use guns any place and at any time.