|
|
Re: So, I'm having a conversation with my nine year old daughter...
by Anonymous-Coward on Jul 29, 2008 - 12:05 AM
|
I think the basis of her child's decision relies in a sense of personal responsibility, which is grossly lacking in a majority of children, AND most certainly adults, and not so much an issue which we have had the last 20-30 years with "latch key kids". Not too long back it was common for kids to be unsupervised and have that be seen as safe. My husband used to be able to go to the corner store with a note and get his mom a 6 pack and a pack of smokes, and now the clerk'd go to jail for underage sale. I used to ride in the back window of my dad's IROC....now they have to be in booster seats until practically highschool if they're a "late bloomer". Social standards have changed much since then, how "east coast babysitter" is now seen as child abandonment or neglect.
It comes to two issues which are really very highly debated nowadays. People who want to watch their own backs and others who'd like to see their bubblewrap investment double. Over the last 8 years it's been a hot button, how many little freedoms, which equal out to one big hunk of freedom, will you give up so you remain in a comfortable amber (ie: ALERT! KIND OF PANIC, SORT OF!)) feeling of "security" (see: frog boiling). This led to illegal phone tapping, all for saftey. Illegal detention of "suspicious" persons without legal counsel, for saftey. A war *cough*. The PC movement. Frivilous lawsuits, overwhelmed HR hotlines, lazy, senseless, puling gluttons all waiting for a sliding door to malfunction, a slippery floor (with or without a hazard sign in three posted languages) , all so they can gain a windfall. People who sigh and shake their heads on the news "wow, there aught to be a law, that is potentially inconvenient". Families suing police departments because their loved one aimed a weapon at an officer and the police shot them. Well, that's what they goddamned get.
You should not protect people from themselves. We have the right to bear arms. That means that people will get shot, which is between the gun owner and the person antagonizing the gun owner. I choose not to antagonize potential gun owners. I will teach my daughter not to antagonize potential gun owners. There are people who would like to take that right away. I don't own a gun. I don't want to. But that doesn't mean that someone else can't. There are laws in place to punnish someone for irresponsibly discharging their firearm. It is up to each individual how to protect themselves from this life hazard, which means keeping their big goddamned mouths shut when it's prudent, or other means.
I am not an advocate of total anarchy (not in the classic sense, but in the sense that most people hold it to today). There are systems in place to try to keep an even keel between abuse and justice, neglegence and common sense. Sometimes they are in harmony, sometimes they are not. It is the way of the world. However, to willingly give over small "freedoms" for an illusion of "saftey" is disturbing. I would not bargain an OUNCE of my freedom, or my daughter's freedom for an illusion of "national saftey". That is absurd. Actually, it's frightening that anyone would do so. I won't give it up so someone else can pass the buck, let the government put a lock and camera on MYdoor so that when a wolf comes knocking at the house next door, and if it looks like a wolf, smells like a wolf, talks like a wolf, and they let it in anyway, they can look around and say "how was I supposed to know? Nobody TOLD me it was a wolf."
I grew up knowing that if I drive like an asshole, I'll crash my car and be screwed, that if I dont' look both ways before crossing the street I'll get run over, that if I drink too much I'll do something retarded, that if I talked to strangers I could be hurt, that if I don't lock my door I could get burglarized, that if I don't show up for my job I'll be fired, that if I do something idiotic I'll have to fess up to it, that if I want someth
Read the rest of this comment...
|
|
|