Freedom and liberty in the USA

Can someone please explain the idea of freedom and liberty in the USA as it relates to sex, alcohol, and gun control. Namely,

  • any 18 year old can easily buy a machine gun but not a bottle of wine or beer? So a bottle of beer/wine is more dangerous than an assault rifle?

  • the movie ratings board will allow as much violence as anyone wants in any movie but too much sex is a no-no and gets slapped with a NC-17 rating? so its better to make war than love?

-its legal to buy a machine gun but not legal to peacefully sip a glass of wine or bottle of beer in a public park or at the beach?

Just don’t get it.

In regards to machine guns, I think someone has to be at least 21 and own an approved business premise to get a license for class 3 weapons. As far as your comments on alcohol, I agree it doesn’t make a lot of sense. They’re old enough to go to war for the country but not old enough to drink a beer? I think they don’t allow glass containers on the beaches for safety reasons

In most states, an 18 year old can buy a rifle or shot gun. So perhaps not a machine gun. But still, you can buy a rifle but not a 6 pack of pabst blue ribbon? Banning glass containers on beaches sounds reasonable, but banning all alcohol regardless of container type on the beach is a different matter.

I didn’t know alcohol was banned on the beaches. Is this a federal law, state by state, individual counties, particular beaches? Pabst blue ribbon ought to be banned all together, that and coors light among others

In America we like to call ourselves “free”, but we’re really not. Sure, we enjoy more freedoms than are enjoyed in most countries, but we still have a distance to go to truly merit the title “Land of the Free”.

One can to send to war zone to kill and to be killed before they can drink alcohol. Is there any wonder why they kill themselves after being sent to war zone for 3 to 5 tours?

There is no age limit on using a gun. Our friend posted a picture of their 8 year old holding up a dead deer’s head for the first kill picture. The child looked like he was about to vomit. All the adults were” we are so proud of you” . Around here (Texas), they do not go hunt in the woods, they put a deer feeder in the ranch, after the deer start to come over to feed, the so call hunters, pull out the shotgun and shoot the deer.

I am not against hunting, my husband told me about how his father took them out camping and hunting. When hunting is done properly, it is a good family activities and good training on how to care and use the guns.

Yes, drinking in public places is prohibited (parks, streets, beaches) or at lest in California it is.
Some countries have fscked up priorities compared to a “world standard” or “common sense” (then again, it’s hard to say since both could be subjective).
That is how it is there right now, then again, how many shootings have happened in 2013 so far?
As JMCD mentioned, some places like Texas keep their gun laws/culture from way back, as I mentioned in other threat, which could explain this priority issue (which makes me wonder… the 21 yr old limit could come from the moonshine days? IDK…)
I agree with FangLangZhe but I’m not loosing any sleep about it.

[quote=“jmcd”]Around here (Texas), they do not go hunt in the woods, they put a deer feeder in the ranch, after the deer start to come over to feed, the so call hunters, pull out the shotgun and shoot the deer.

I am not against hunting, my husband told me about how his father took them out camping and hunting. When hunting is done properly, it is a good family activities and good training on how to care and use the guns.[/quote]

Yes, deer season in TX was an eye opener. Building a blind and feeding deer for a month before sitting in wait to gun them down is NOT hunting; nor is it sport.

My hometown in AR is a dry county. You can’t even buy alcohol there on any day of the week. All it does is cost the town revenues because people drive to the edges of the county to buy alcohol and then drink and drive on the way home.

We have to be 16 to drive or to vote, or to be tried as an adult; 18 to go to war, have consensual sex, or to marry without parental consent (an 18 year old can go to prison for rape of a minor if he/she is caught in a carnal relatioship with a 16 or 17 year old boy/girl friend, and then spend the rest of his/her life as a registered sex offender); and 21 to buy alcohol or tobacco products. Yes. That’s messed up.

What, can’t get married at 13 anymore? :slight_smile:

The other thing is the drone war being pursued in Pakistan and Afghanistan and Yemen. Collateral damage is allowed and accepted from the outset and the President allowed to take out American citizens now as long as they are overseas! Okay they are not in the USA but an example of some strange double standards.

[quote=“fanglangzhe”]Can someone please explain the idea of freedom and liberty in the USA as it relates to sex, alcohol, and gun control. Namely,

  • any 18 year old can easily buy a machine gun but not a bottle of wine or beer? So a bottle of beer/wine is more dangerous than an assault rifle?

  • the movie ratings board will allow as much violence as anyone wants in any movie but too much sex is a no-no and gets slapped with a NC-17 rating? so its better to make war than love?

-its legal to buy a machine gun but not legal to peacefully sip a glass of wine or bottle of beer in a public park or at the beach?

Just don’t get it.[/quote]
Well, seeing as how you don’t even know what the laws are, it’s not surprising.

Only about half the states allow machine gun ownership at all. To buy one, you have to go through a permitting process done by the BATF (in addition to any state and local requirements). In most cases, this includes getting a signed letter from your local police department or county sheriff stating that the police don’t have any problem with you owning one.

The alcohol laws were forced into place because of a problem with teenage drunk drivers. It’s unfortunate, but the reality is that we don’t want the binge-drinking culture of the UK, and raising the drinking age helps to stop it. Organizations like MADD have gone overboard in other respects (such as “drunk driving” laws where someone inside a vehicle and in possession of the keys can get convicted for “being in control of a vehicle” even if, say, they are sleeping in the back seat until they sober up – in some states it is safer to go ahead and drive home while drunk than it is to take a nap in your car).

As for movies, yes, it’s dumb, but IIRC at least one movie was given an NC-17 rating for violence. Usually, though, rather than risk that, a filmmaker will simply tone down the violence, which is preferable anyway, IMHO.

[quote=“Pein_11”]Yes, drinking in public places is prohibited (parks, streets, beaches) or at lest in California it is.
[/quote]

When did that happen? Where I grew up in Cali everyone drank beer at the river during the summer and only had to worry about the cops if they got out of hand or brought glass containers. A summer or 3 ago they started prohibited alcohol there on the 4th of July because a bunch young bucks got into a major drunken brawl. But that’s only one day out of the year. If I remember right some parks allow it too, or used to anyways. Much of the sentiment of lack of freedom there seems to be relatively recent. Every year they have to pass 20,000 new laws in each state because of whatever excuse (basically so lawmakers can justify their jobs I guess). Cops are also more militant these days and uptight as hell. 20-30 years ago things were less tense and not quite as ridiculous, imo

Everything is illegal to one degree or another in the U.S.S.A. and everyone is an enemy of the state to one degree or another, depending on the mood of the particular Ministry of Homeland Security personnel on any given day. And don’t expect anything as quaint as the 4th Amendment to protect you when you’re crossing its borders:

[quote]The Fourth Amendment no longer means what you once thought it did: A new report reveals that the government has shrugged off concerns over the alleged constitutional infringements of its own citizens near international crossings.

An internal review of the US Department of Homeland Security’s procedures regarding the suspicionless search-and-seizure of phones and laptops near the nation’s border has reaffirmed the agency’s ability to bypass Fourth Amendment-protected rights.

In a two page executive summary published quietly last month to the official DHS website, the agency explains that a civil rights and civil liberties impact assessment of the office’s little-known power to collect personal electronics near international crossings has passed an auditor’s interpretation of what does and doesn’t violate the US Constitution.

Since 2009, the DHS has been legally permitted to seize and review the contents of personal electronic devices, including mobile phones, portable computers and data discs, even without being able to cite any reasonable suspicion that those articles were involved in a crime.[/quote]
rt.com/usa/dhs-search-border-electronics-784/

Well, if people could behave responsibly, the politicians wouldn’t make so many laws.

[quote]The great Tao fades away
There is benevolence and justice
Intelligence comes forth
There is great deception

The six relations are not harmonious
There is filial piety and kind affection
The country is in confused chaos
There are loyal ministers[/quote]

Apparently “behaving responsibly” in the U.S.S.A. includes not having large sums of cash in your possession, even if it’s your own money and you can prove it:

[quote]It appears that anyone visiting Tennessee this summer should leave their cash at home. A New Jersey man has encountered an outrageous policy among police in that state to seize large amounts of cash from out-of-state visitors without any probable cause of a crime. The practice brings a new meaning to “highway robbery.”

A professional insurance adjuster, George Reby, was traveling through the state from New Jersey when he was stopped and asked by Officer Larry Bates if he had large amounts of cash. He said that he did — $22,000. The officer demanded the money and said that he was confiscating the money on suspicion of drug activity. That is it. The mere fact that he was carrying a large amount of cash was enough under this policy to seize the money. The police know that many out-of-state travelers never come back for the cash and they are then allowed to keep the money for their own uses at the department.

Even though Reby explained why he had the money, it did not matter. The fact that he completely cooperated in allowing a full search of his car did not matter. What mattered was that the police wanted the cash.

Bates admitted that he did not arrest Reby because he did not commit any crime. However, he reminded drivers that “[t]he safest place to put your money if it’s legitimate is in a bank account. He stated he had two. I would put it in a bank account. It draws interest and it’s safer.”

Bates said that he was right to take the money because “he couldn’t prove it was legitimate.” That of course flips the normal presumption under criminal law, but it is an example of how police powers have increased in this country.

To made matters even more authoritarian, Tennessee law allows a judge to sign off on the seizure in an ex parte proceeding. Reby was never informed of the hearing. Only the officer’s account is considered at such hearings.[/quote]
jonathanturley.org/2012/05/24/hi … or-profit/

When the government of the U.S.S.A. can send the Hellfire fairy to pay its citizens a visit:

[quote]If the standards for when the government can send a deadly flying robot to vaporize you sound a bit subjective, that’s because they are. (U.S. Attorney General) Holder made clear that decisions about which citizens the government can kill are the exclusive province of the executive branch, because only the executive branch possess the “expertise and immediate access to information” to make these life-and-death judgments.

Holder argues that “robust oversight” is provided by Congress, but that “oversight” actually amounts to members of the relevant congressional committees being briefed. Press reports suggest this can simply amount to a curt fax to intelligence committees notifying them after the fact that an American has been added to a “kill list.” It also seems like it would be difficult for Congress to provide “robust oversight” of the targeted killing program when intelligence committee members like Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) are still demanding to see the actual legal memo justifying the policy. . .

In a statement, Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU’s national security project, called the authority described in the speech “chilling.” She urged the administration to release the Justice Department legal memo justifying the targeted killing program—a document that the ACLU and the New York Times are currently suing the US government to acquire. “Anyone willing to trust President Obama with the power to secretly declare an American citizen an enemy of the state and order his extrajudicial killing should ask whether they would be willing to trust the next president with that dangerous power.”[/quote]

[quote=“Winston Smith”]Apparently “behaving responsibly” in the U.S.S.A. includes not having large sums of cash in your possession, even if it’s your own money and you can prove it:

[quote]It appears that anyone visiting Tennessee this summer should leave their cash at home. A New Jersey man has encountered an outrageous policy among police in that state to seize large amounts of cash from out-of-state visitors without any probable cause of a crime. The practice brings a new meaning to “highway robbery.”

A professional insurance adjuster, George Reby, was traveling through the state from New Jersey when he was stopped and asked by Officer Larry Bates if he had large amounts of cash. He said that he did — $22,000. The officer demanded the money and said that he was confiscating the money on suspicion of drug activity. That is it. The mere fact that he was carrying a large amount of cash was enough under this policy to seize the money. The police know that many out-of-state travelers never come back for the cash and they are then allowed to keep the money for their own uses at the department.

Even though Reby explained why he had the money, it did not matter. The fact that he completely cooperated in allowing a full search of his car did not matter. What mattered was that the police wanted the cash.

Bates admitted that he did not arrest Reby because he did not commit any crime. However, he reminded drivers that “[t]he safest place to put your money if it’s legitimate is in a bank account. He stated he had two. I would put it in a bank account. It draws interest and it’s safer.”

Bates said that he was right to take the money because “he couldn’t prove it was legitimate.” That of course flips the normal presumption under criminal law, but it is an example of how police powers have increased in this country.

To made matters even more authoritarian, Tennessee law allows a judge to sign off on the seizure in an ex parte proceeding. Reby was never informed of the hearing. Only the officer’s account is considered at such hearings.[/quote]
jonathanturley.org/2012/05/24/hi … or-profit/[/quote]

Isn’t Tennessee the place where the cops recently stopped an old couple from Ohio because they had an Ohio State Buckeye sticker on their car bumper and the cops mistakenly believed that it was a pot leaf? I’m not condoning these stops at all… just the opposite. I’m just saying that the people have a role/blame in this nonsense. They either don’t know how to behave responsibly and or don’t know how to responsibly protest the infringement of their freedoms.

[quote=“louisfriend”][quote=“Pein_11”]Yes, drinking in public places is prohibited (parks, streets, beaches) or at lest in California it is.
[/quote]

When did that happen? Where I grew up in Cali everyone drank beer at the river during the summer and only had to worry about the cops if they got out of hand or brought glass containers. A summer or 3 ago they started prohibited alcohol there on the 4th of July because a bunch young bucks got into a major drunken brawl. But that’s only one day out of the year. If I remember right some parks allow it too, or used to anyways. Much of the sentiment of lack of freedom there seems to be relatively recent. Every year they have to pass 20,000 new laws in each state because of whatever excuse (basically so lawmakers can justify their jobs I guess). Cops are also more militant these days and uptight as hell. 20-30 years ago things were less tense and not quite as ridiculous, imo[/quote]

I’ve been to quite a few places but have never encountered such hard-ass over the top policing as in the US of A. I know the excuse seems to be that it’s because of the danger of guns but it does seem there is more to it than that. Then you add in the addition of stun guns and their very liberal use, it’s all got a bit much. I prefer the old community policing style when and where possible.

The under 21 drinking rule is ridiculous, always has been, and what happens is you get this binge drinking subculture of keg parties and what not and also a lot of young adults who don’t know how to handle alcohol. I hung out with college students in the US on my working holidays and they always drank to excess (we all did), and we drank far more than we would have done if we had been able to go to the local bar and had some supervision etc. Plus why shouldn’t an 18 year old be able to go to a bar or a licensed premises, far too restrictive.
Where I’m from it’s not much better in terms of binge drinking culture but for different reasons.

[quote=“louisfriend”][quote=“Pein_11”]Yes, drinking in public places is prohibited (parks, streets, beaches) or at lest in California it is.
[/quote]

When did that happen? Where I grew up in Cali everyone drank beer at the river during the summer and only had to worry about the cops if they got out of hand or brought glass containers. A summer or 3 ago they started prohibited alcohol there on the 4th of July because a bunch young bucks got into a major drunken brawl. But that’s only one day out of the year. If I remember right some parks allow it too, or used to anyways. Much of the sentiment of lack of freedom there seems to be relatively recent. Every year they have to pass 20,000 new laws in each state because of whatever excuse (basically so lawmakers can justify their jobs I guess). Cops are also more militant these days and uptight as hell. 20-30 years ago things were less tense and not quite as ridiculous, imo[/quote]

Not only drinking but smoking too isn’t it? It’s okay to light up a joint for medicinal purposes though :cactus: .

If I was high too I could probably fathom what you mean by equating an Ohio State Buckeye bumper stick with acting irresponsibly but I’m not so I don’t have the faintest clue how the two could be equated.

If you want to watch a people in action who know how to stand up for their rights when the government infringes on them watch a bunch of Taiwanese people in action. Americans, on the other hand, seem to have lost the freedom gene completely if the movie Compliance is any indication of the current state of affairs there.

Actually, members of the military are allowed to drink at age 18. They just have to show their military ID. This was written into the law because of all the whining about “they can be drafted but can’t drink”.