Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

 
  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-02-2012, 10:00   #201
TheJ
Lifetime Membership
NRA Life Member
 
TheJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: GA
Posts: 1,492
Blog Entries: 3
Quote:
Originally Posted by bandmasterjf View Post
You are putting words in my mouth, and don't have a clue what I believe or don't believe. You don't seem to have a grasp on reality...
If you'll please notice, I put a question mark at the end as if to ask you if my perception of your view is correct or not. It wasn't a rhetorical question it was legitimate. If my perception of your view is incorrect, you can simply say that and state your view correctly. Stating that I don't have a grasp on reality is a bit dramatic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bandmasterjf View Post
... So do you think criminals should legally be allowed to have guns?
People lose rights all the time for thier actions or their state of mind.
You are missing my point. Gun control laws can and do ONLY prevent those who chose to obey laws from having guns. Criminals by definition are not following the law so laws don't stop them.

Do you honestly believe if somebody who (even somebody previously convicted of a crime) is resolute to harm/kill someone else, that the gun control laws will stop them? (not a rhetorical question).


I do believe that if somebody previously convicted, is determined to be safe enough to be free in our society then they should be able to legally defend themselves because the right of self defense is a basic human right. Additionally, I personally have never said that there can never be a case where rights may not be suspended with due process.

Are you ok with the scenerio below? Do you believe that once someone has committed a felony that they should forever be legally denied the human right of self defense?
Quote:
...I can imagine a scenario where an 18 year old girl gets caught up with bad types, ends up committing a felony and is convicted. She serves her sentence and years later she is released. So we as a society have said she has served her sentence, is safe enough to be released and told her to go be a productive member of our society. She makes all attempts to go the straight and narrow. Doesn't have much money so it would be logical that she lives in the crappiest (read most dangerous) part of town. So then she is brutally raped and murdered in the most horrid way imaginable because we have denied her basic human right of self defense for the rest of her (now abbreviated) life.

Some would say we practically guaranteed it would happen to her. Effectively making her brutal rape and murder part of her sentence.
That seems to be "cruel and unusual punishment" to me..
__________________
Jay

The test of a first rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function. -F. Scott Fitzgerald
TheJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2012, 10:03   #202
IhRedrider
Not a walker
 
IhRedrider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 521
Quote:
The only control the Government should have, is the sale and control over mass supplies of guns and weapons to any individual and Class 3 automatic weapons and other types of very dangerous weapons that can be used by Terrorists!
Just a few question.

What is "mass supplies of guns and weapons", what constitutional definition should be used? What would prevent some branch of the government from saying that any gun the shoots more than one projectile without reloading falls into this category?

How would you or the government define "very dangerous weapons"?

"that can be used by Terrorists!" what weapon could not be used by terrorists? I understand your sentiment, but using this criteria, all weapons (including rocks) would fall into government control. How would you propose to prevent this from happening?

Thanks in advance.
IhRedrider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2012, 10:28   #203
IhRedrider
Not a walker
 
IhRedrider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 521
Bandmaster,

Could you answer these questions??

1. How is a "dangerous criminal" defined in the Constitution?
2. What standards do YOU think need to be applied to determine if someone is a "dangerous criminal"?
3. Who do you think needs to be the person responsible to decide who meets the qualifications of "dangerous criminal"?
4. Even harder, I want to know the answer to the previous questions as they pertain to "insane person" instead of "dangerous criminal"?
5. If someone was determined "dangerous criminal" or "insane person" is there some mechanism for them to appeal this categorization, and who would they appeal to?
IhRedrider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2012, 12:08   #204
Jerry
Moderator
 
Jerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 8,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1gewehr View Post
Jerry, the problem comes when you utilize either a government-owned method of transportation, or privately-owned means. In the case of the interstate, the Feds have rules for how the highway may be utilized, including speed limits, what kind of traffic may use it, and the ability to control access when they want to (during emergencies or war). Of course, the owners of property have the legal right to control or forbid access. This has nothing to do with a right to travel.
In the case of air travel, the Feds believe that they have a right to regulate commercial flights that cross a state line. Notice you do not have TSA checking owners of private aircraft. When I was younger, I caught many a ride on private planes by 'hitch-hiking' and offering to share fuel costs. This is much harder due to the increased security caused by the many aircraft thefts in the '80's by drug smugglers. But there are still ride-share boards where you can hop a ride on a private plane. No TSA groping required!
I was just skimming the posts today and realized what you said. See bold print in your post. There is a VERY HUGE PROBLEM in today’s society. We have been conditioned to "think" THE GOVERNMENT OWNS. The People have been conditioned to “think” things belong to “the government” and the politicians believe it belongs to them.

I understand what you meant but it’s kind of like clips and magazines. We all know with it means and we all except it but it just AIN'T right.

AND this is a perfect example of why I don’t believe we have a “right” to travel. Feds can stop people from using federal highways and waterways. States can stop people from using state highways, roads and waterways and citizens can stop people from crossing their land. So where is the freedom to travel? A freedom that the government can denied is a privilege.

PLEASE PROVE ME WRONG.
__________________
Jerry
BIG DAWG #4

Liberal: Someone who is so open-minded their brains have fallen out.
Guns are not dangerous, people are.

Last edited by Jerry; 01-02-2012 at 13:35..
Jerry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2012, 12:47   #205
TheJ
Lifetime Membership
NRA Life Member
 
TheJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: GA
Posts: 1,492
Blog Entries: 3
Quote:
Originally Posted by bandmasterjf View Post
It does two things. One if they do have a weapon, they can be prosicuted further for that which will get them off the strets longer. Someone with a a lawless attitude and propensity for violence should be off the streets for as long as possible. I think we can all agree to that. Sure in your and Jerry's perfect little dream world dangerous people would be locked up forever, but that's not going to happen.
That "sounds" well intentioned...

But what exactly is a "lawless attitude" and "propensity for violence"?
Do you simply mean someone convicted of multiple violent felonies?
If so, wouldn't is make more sense to attempt mitigation of danger to others by pushing for tougher sentencing, rather than deny free people their human right to self defense??

Speaking of "perfect little dream worlds" you still seem to advocate the position that gun control actually stops criminals from doing anything bad. Your positions seems to be based on fallacious logic.

Based on your post, you believe people should be held to a higher degree of account by the law because they have a gun.

What other stuff should we put dangerous people in jail for possesing? What about cigarette lighters they could use to burn down houses with and easily kill many? Or cars that they could run people over with in the blink of an eye? Should they be allowed to buy gasoline? Or fertilizer? What about pocket knives/box cutters they could cause death with? Or #2 pencils they could easily stab someone to death with? What if they are just big and are skilled at harming people with thier hands? Should we remove thier hands and feet? Obviously this paragraph is somewhat rhetorical but the purpose is to point out how fallacious the logicis that "guns = crime" or the lack of guns means bad people are unable to do harm just as easily. Take prison for example.. No guns there should mean that they are nice safe places where people can rest right? No violence/rapes/murder there..

Guns are only one tool on an infinite list of tools that one may use to commit violent offenses that harm others. Conversely, guns are not magical but they are one of THE best tools for self defense. Practically speaking gun control laws will almost exclusively result in denying free people the right to self defense, while doing practically nothing to deny any criminal the ability to harm others.
__________________
Jay

The test of a first rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function. -F. Scott Fitzgerald
TheJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2012, 13:41   #206
Jerry
Moderator
 
Jerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 8,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheJ View Post
Take prison for example.. No guns there should mean that they are nice safe places where people can rest right? No violence/rapes/murder there..

If that doesn’t bring it into perspective nothing will.
__________________
Jerry
BIG DAWG #4

Liberal: Someone who is so open-minded their brains have fallen out.
Guns are not dangerous, people are.
Jerry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2012, 19:00   #207
bandmasterjf
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheJ View Post
If you'll please notice, I put a question mark at the end as if to ask you if my perception of your view is correct or not. It wasn't a rhetorical question it was legitimate. If my perception of your view is incorrect, you can simply say that and state your view correctly. Stating that I don't have a grasp on reality is a bit dramatic.

You are missing my point. Gun control laws can and do ONLY prevent those who chose to obey laws from having guns. Criminals by definition are not following the law so laws don't stop them.

Do you honestly believe if somebody who (even somebody previously convicted of a crime) is resolute to harm/kill someone else, that the gun control laws will stop them? (not a rhetorical question).


I do believe that if somebody previously convicted, is determined to be safe enough to be free in our society then they should be able to legally defend themselves because the right of self defense is a basic human right. Additionally, I personally have never said that there can never be a case where rights may not be suspended with due process.

Are you ok with the scenerio below? Do you believe that once someone has committed a felony that they should forever be legally denied the human right of self defense?
If you have read all my post you would know I don't have a problem with non-violent/drug felons having or carrying guns.

To answer your question, no. Anyone who wants a gun bad enough can find a way to get it. Do you have some problem with making it harder for them to get one? Most laws are reactive rather than proactive. I see the most gun laws as both as they work in my state. People who shouldn't have one get punished more when they do, just like you would get punished for speeding. You do have to be doing something wrong to get caught. I'm sure there are thousands of felons out there now that have guns that will never get in trouble for it because they either don't do anything wrong with it, or don't get caught.

I think part of your guys problem is your specific states rules and policies. In Arkansas buying a gun/s is very quick and easy. With a CCL it takes only enough time to fill out the top portion of the firearms trasfer with name CCL# and signature. All of your personal info is connected to the CCL# so you don't have to fill that part out. Then you pay your money and walk out with as many guns as you can afford. There is no phone call and no background check. For folks without the CCL the paperwork probably takes 2 more minutes and the background check generally takes less than 5 minutes. I've only met one person who had to wait more than an hour.
__________________
Was Jesus really a pacifist?
LUKE 22:36
bandmasterjf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2012, 19:21   #208
bandmasterjf
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by IhRedrider View Post
Bandmaster,

Could you answer these questions??

1. How is a "dangerous criminal" defined in the Constitution?
2. What standards do YOU think need to be applied to determine if someone is a "dangerous criminal"?
3. Who do you think needs to be the person responsible to decide who meets the qualifications of "dangerous criminal"?
4. Even harder, I want to know the answer to the previous questions as they pertain to "insane person" instead of "dangerous criminal"?
5. If someone was determined "dangerous criminal" or "insane person" is there some mechanism for them to appeal this categorization, and who would they appeal to?
If you had read all my post you would already know my answer to 1-3. Let's get serious on number 1. The folks I'm talking about would have been hanged when the constitution was written. You seriously think Thomas Jefferson would think a child rapist should have a gun? NO! He would be hanging from a tree somewhere, like he should be today. Not a good argument. I don't think violent felons or people with drug felonies should legally have guns. They are catagorized by the jury that convicts them and the judge that sentences them. I don't care about the guy with 3DWI's or the bad check folks or even the negligant homisides. Insane people are defined all the time by doctors. Some are locked up. I think if you've been locked up against your will then you shouldn't have a gun, but do think you should be able the appeal that. I also think if a guy has voices in his head that says "kill them all" probably shouldn't be packin' either. The felons I think are out of luck.
__________________
Was Jesus really a pacifist?
LUKE 22:36
bandmasterjf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2012, 19:54   #209
Jerry
Moderator
 
Jerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 8,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by bandmasterjf View Post
To answer your question, no. Anyone who wants a gun bad enough can find a way to get it. Do you have some problem with making it harder for them to get one? Most laws are reactive rather than proactive. I see the most gun laws as both as they work in my state. People who shouldn't have one get punished more when they do, just like you would get punished for speeding. You do have to be doing something wrong to get caught. I'm sure there are thousands of felons out there now that have guns that will never get in trouble for it because they either don't do anything wrong with it, or don't get caught.

I think part of your guys problem is your specific states rules and policies. In Arkansas buying a gun/s is very quick and easy. With a CCL it takes only enough time to fill out the top portion of the firearms trasfer with name CCL# and signature. All of your personal info is connected to the CCL# so you don't have to fill that part out. Then you pay your money and walk out with as many guns as you can afford. There is no phone call and no background check. For folks without the CCL the paperwork probably takes 2 more minutes and the background check generally takes less than 5 minutes. I've only met one person who had to wait more than an hour.
There are two very big PROBLEMS that don’t seem to concern you so “you” believe they shouldn’t concern others. Again, typical liberal mindset.

1) They have not made it harder only on those “you” believe should not have firearms. They have made it harder on many, many honest, hard working and honorable citizens. "INFRINGEMENT"!
2) In your state CCW eliminates background checks. Well isn’t that special! Your state, like many others have turned a “right” into a privilege. "INFRINGEMENT"!
__________________
Jerry
BIG DAWG #4

Liberal: Someone who is so open-minded their brains have fallen out.
Guns are not dangerous, people are.

Last edited by Jerry; 01-05-2012 at 19:54..
Jerry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2012, 20:09   #210
bandmasterjf
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
There are two very big PROBLEMS that don’t seem to concern you so “you” believe they shouldn’t concern others. Again, typical liberal mindset.

1) They have not made it harder only on those “you” believe should not have firearms. They have made it harder on many, many honest, hard working and honorable citizens. "INFRINGEMENT"!
2) In your state CCW eliminates background checks. Well isn’t that special! Your state, like many others have turned a “right” into a privilege. "INFRINGEMENT"!
When someone asks me MY opinion. I give them My opinion. Do YOU not get that? That's not a liberal idea.

So you think a felon who can't get a gun at a gun store and has to find one on the streets and pay twice as much doesn't find it harder to get a gun?

You can go where you want and get what you want when you want it. You can buy one with a credit card or put it on layaway in some places. Or you could if you didn't live in whatever comunist state you live in. Sorry your state hasn't found a way around law abiding citizens from having to wait. Sucks to be you.

So do you think Thomas Jefferson would want a rapist to have a gun?

If we were taking care of criminals the way we should we wouldn't be having this argument because they would all be dead and would have no need for the laws. That's why it's not illigal to be rabid in public. The problem takes care of itself.
__________________
Was Jesus really a pacifist?
LUKE 22:36
bandmasterjf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2012, 20:26   #211
Jerry
Moderator
 
Jerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 8,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by bandmasterjf View Post
You seriously think Thomas Jefferson would think a child rapist should have a gun? NO!
Here in lies the problem with the/your liberal way of thinking. You believe you know what Tomas Jefferson would or would not want when it comes to a pedophile and firearms when he never put anything about it in writing. However what he did put into writing you believe should be “interoperated” to fit what “you” believe / what “you” want it to mean. “Shall not be infringed”. I see no exceptions listed anywhere in the Constitution.

Now you would have us believe that he would have had a pedophile put to death. I would hope so. But tell my why because in todays society they don’t you believe there “right” to own a firearm should be “infringed”. Is their right to speech, practice religion or to petition the government for redress infringed? No they’re not! How about their right to peacefully assemble? Nope! But you want their right to purchase and own a firearm denied just because society didn’t see fit to kill them. Sounds like you want “your” idea of vengeance to out-way what the founders set down in writing in the Constitution.

Should pedophiles be put down? Absolutely! Should a right be denied to “anyone” that is free. Absolutely not!

Please explain to me how denying a pedophile a gun will stop them from being a pedophile. Please explain why a pedophile would be deterred by knowing that if they are caught they will not be allowed to purchase of own a firearm.
__________________
Jerry
BIG DAWG #4

Liberal: Someone who is so open-minded their brains have fallen out.
Guns are not dangerous, people are.

Last edited by Jerry; 01-05-2012 at 20:41..
Jerry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2012, 20:29   #212
Jerry
Moderator
 
Jerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 8,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by bandmasterjf View Post
When someone asks me MY opinion. I give them My opinion. Do YOU not get that? That's not a liberal idea.

So you think a felon who can't get a gun at a gun store and has to find one on the streets and pay twice as much doesn't find it harder to get a gun?

You can go where you want and get what you want when you want it. You can buy one with a credit card or put it on layaway in some places. Or you could if you didn't live in whatever comunist state you live in. Sorry your state hasn't found a way around law abiding citizens from having to wait. Sucks to be you.

So do you think Thomas Jefferson would want a rapist to have a gun?

If we were taking care of criminals the way we should we wouldn't be having this argument because they would all be dead and would have no need for the laws. That's why it's not illigal to be rabid in public. The problem takes care of itself.
Getting guns on the street is not hard. Stolen guns cost less than new ones at the fun store.

If “THEY” were taking care of criminals the way they were supposed to we would still be having this argument because gun control isn’t about stooping crime or criminals. It’s about control!
__________________
Jerry
BIG DAWG #4

Liberal: Someone who is so open-minded their brains have fallen out.
Guns are not dangerous, people are.

Last edited by Jerry; 01-05-2012 at 20:30..
Jerry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2012, 20:33   #213
IhRedrider
Not a walker
 
IhRedrider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 521
Quote:
So do you think Thomas Jefferson would want a rapist to have a gun?
Quote:
You seriously think Thomas Jefferson would think a child rapist should have a gun?
This is your rationale on why it's ok to violate the second amendment? Do you think there were no rapist in Thomas Jefferson's time? Do you think they just forgot to address this problem?

Like I said before. Just because the justice system is broken (let's convicted murderers free), gives NO ONE the right to violate the constitution by violating anyone's RIGHTS.
IhRedrider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2012, 20:43   #214
bandmasterjf
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,558
Your collective lack of grasp on reality is staggering. You are just as bad as the liberals.
__________________
Was Jesus really a pacifist?
LUKE 22:36
bandmasterjf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2012, 20:55   #215
IhRedrider
Not a walker
 
IhRedrider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 521
Quote:
Your collective lack of grasp on reality is staggering. You are just as bad as the liberals.
I assume you are referring to me so, explain with logic not emotion, where I am lacking a grasp on reality. And please explain why my defense of RIGHTS, as documented in the Constitution, is "as bad as the liberals". Thanks.

p.s. If you wish to surrender your rights to someone else, that's your business. Just don't assume to volunteer up someone else's rights. They might resist with surprising determination and fortitude.
IhRedrider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2012, 21:17   #216
IhRedrider
Not a walker
 
IhRedrider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 521
bandmaster,

something else you said has caught my attention.

Quote:
So you think a felon who can't get a gun at a gun store and has to find one on the streets and pay twice as much doesn't find it harder to get a gun?
Do you think that the point of gun control is to make it harder for felons to get guns?

If that is the point, just make guns illegal, punishable by death, and commence the search seizure and execution of all persons and homes with guns. When the search is complete then law enforcement can destroy their guns and we will have a truly gun free, therefore crime-free society. Utopia, if only some else would have implemented this type of plan (Hitler 1933) we would be living in global peace.
IhRedrider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2012, 22:28   #217
bandmasterjf
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by IhRedrider View Post
bandmaster,

something else you said has caught my attention.



Do you think that the point of gun control is to make it harder for felons to get guns?

If that is the point, just make guns illegal, punishable by death, and commence the search seizure and execution of all persons and homes with guns. When the search is complete then law enforcement can destroy their guns and we will have a truly gun free, therefore crime-free society. Utopia, if only some else would have implemented this type of plan (Hitler 1933) we would be living in global peace.
This whole post is just silly. FELONS dude. Read it. FELONS.

That's just a stupid argument. You're grasping at straws and saying stuff that lacks a bit of reality. Such a liberal ploy.
__________________
Was Jesus really a pacifist?
LUKE 22:36

Last edited by bandmasterjf; 01-05-2012 at 22:30..
bandmasterjf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2012, 23:08   #218
Jerry
Moderator
 
Jerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 8,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by bandmasterjf View Post
Your collective lack of grasp on reality is staggering. You are just as bad as the liberals.
Seems you’re the one with lack of grasp. Liberals believe in their particular version of freedom and only when it applies to them being free to impose their will on others. A lot like your version of freedom. Your trying to turn the tables of liberalism on Constitutionalism is further proof of your liberal leanings. We believe in freedom and equality for all FREE MEN. You believe in your particular version regardless of what the Constitution states.
__________________
Jerry
BIG DAWG #4

Liberal: Someone who is so open-minded their brains have fallen out.
Guns are not dangerous, people are.

Last edited by Jerry; 01-05-2012 at 23:11..
Jerry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2012, 08:48   #219
1gewehr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Mid TN
Posts: 1,374
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
I was just skimming the posts today and realized what you said. See bold print in your post. There is a VERY HUGE PROBLEM in today’s society. We have been conditioned to "think" THE GOVERNMENT OWNS. The People have been conditioned to “think” things belong to “the government” and the politicians believe it belongs to them. ....

AND this is a perfect example of why I don’t believe we have a “right” to travel. Feds can stop people from using federal highways and waterways. States can stop people from using state highways, roads and waterways and citizens can stop people from crossing their land. So where is the freedom to travel? A freedom that the government can denied is a privilege.

PLEASE PROVE ME WRONG.
I don't want to derail the real topic, so I'll just briefly address your response.

There is obviously a difference between what is 'legal' and what is 'practical'. Legally, you have a right to travel. You can still do so without using government-owned methods. As a practical matter, it is more difficult now to travel 'off the grid'. A hundred years ago, there were very few government-owned roads and no government-owned railroads. Waterways, while regulated, are mostly still 'free' as long as you obey the traffic rules.

Personally, I think that having a perception of public facilities (interstate highways, airports, etc) as 'government-owned' is a good thing. It drives home the reality that what our masters call a 'public good' is not necessarily either 'public' or 'good'.
1gewehr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2012, 08:57   #220
John Rambo
Raven
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Tampa, Fl.
Posts: 9,222
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1gewehr View Post
I don't want to derail the real topic, so I'll just briefly address your response.

There is obviously a difference between what is 'legal' and what is 'practical'. Legally, you have a right to travel. You can still do so without using government-owned methods. As a practical matter, it is more difficult now to travel 'off the grid'. A hundred years ago, there were very few government-owned roads and no government-owned railroads. Waterways, while regulated, are mostly still 'free' as long as you obey the traffic rules.

Personally, I think that having a perception of public facilities (interstate highways, airports, etc) as 'government-owned' is a good thing. It drives home the reality that what our masters call a 'public good' is not necessarily either 'public' or 'good'.
Your masters don't call it a public good. Economists do. Public goods are nonrival and nonexcludable. Technically, roads wouldn't fit that criteria if traffic levels got to a certain point. But practically, they're public goods. So are street lights and those types of things.

The government provides public goods because by their very nature, there is no profit motive for the private sector to do so, and thus they will not do so.

Now, roads being used as an extortion tool? Thats another animal altogether.
John Rambo is offline   Reply With Quote

 
  
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:32.




Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 875
230 Members
645 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,672
Aug 11, 2014 at 2:31