Sciencemadness Discussion Board - Tough security proposed for chemicals

Tough security proposed for chemicals

Baphomet - 10-12-2006 at 03:35

Most chem regulations are best described as draconian however this new one from the government sounds even-handed and realistic, in light of what happened in London and the recent apprehension of muslim youths trying to source bomb precursors in Sydney.

Note this is (C) 2006, AAP and was lifted directly from http://www.news.com.au/mercury/story/0,22884,20847994-500594...

Quote:

Tough security proposed for chemicals

November 30, 2006 03:47pm

Article from: AAP

THE Government has proposed tough security for almost 100 household, farm and industrial chemicals to stop them falling into the wrong hands.

The federal Government has released a discussion paper on the control of hazardous chemicals, the first phase of a broader review by the Commonwealth and states.

Australia already has restrictions on access to ammonium nitrate - a common farm fertiliser favoured by terrorists.

The paper identifies another 95 chemicals for potential regulation, but not the products which contain them.

The discussion paper proposes a range of control measures, including the vetting of people handling listed chemicals, better tracking of chemicals through the supply chain, and tighter security for transport and storage.

Attorney-General Philip Ruddock said the paper was an important step to determine how chemicals of security concern should be stored, transported and accessed.

"Chemicals can be used to create explosives but they can also be used to impact upon our water supplies, our food chain, they can contaminate the air or water," he said.

"Experience has shown us that terrorists, unfortunately, are able to get access to chemical products that are often quite readily available in our wider community."

Agriculture Minister Peter McGauran admitted farmers and small business were understandably sceptical of new control measures which might disadvantage them, but said national security concerns had to be addressed.

He stressed the discussion paper did not represent a final position.

"It is a discussion as to the pure or concentrated chemicals - not products," he said.

"The Government is a long way from deciding what products need to be better controlled."

The paper said businesses might be required to ensure legitimate access to some chemicals by minimising threat risks and ensuring only authorised staff had access.

"Such measures may include statements from staff relating to criminal records/offences and maintaining a register of staff that have access to chemicals of security concern," the document said.

"Vetting may include a security check by security agencies, police checks of the criminal history of the applicant, bona fide checks (such as premises checks) to ensure the need to use or access a chemical of security concern is legitimate."

Mr Ruddock said some of the chemicals on the list - such as hydrogen peroxide - were common household chemicals.

The discussion paper, prepared by the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, will be available for public comment until March.

S.C. Wack - 10-12-2006 at 10:01

"Due to the nature of the content within the Discussion Paper on the Control of Chemicals of Security Concern, distribution is by request"

http://www.pmc.gov.au/protecting_australia/haz_materials/ind...

The people are just sheep to be herded and are still a nation of convicts.

Baphomet - 13-12-2006 at 04:08

So you should be able to by Amm Nitrate at the hardware store?

I'm willing to live with some reagent sourcing headaches if it means I don't get blown up on a bus to work.

By the way, I lived in your country for 3 months. You've got just as many sheep as us

quicksilver - 13-12-2006 at 07:22

Mr Wack's comment may be directed to the elemnt of "objectification" of mis-deeds. If we set our focus on the OBJECT and not on the actions of people we get no-where. The gun does not jump off the counter and kill....the guy behind the trigger does..
Ammonium nitrate has been available for many, many years as have an enourmous amount of THINGS (hammers, knives) that could be mis-used but when we chase the object and let personal resposibility take a back seat we accomplish little but get votes at election time.
Austrialia had set in motion strick gun control after a tragic shooting of innocent children. This then set in motion a standard to legislate against swords! Where would one stop when it comes to legislation aimed at objects instead of behaviour?
While I would not think that handing out weapons is a good idea, it is always presented as an "either or" argument. Present legislation is appropriate but to further laws against objects is to simply gather votes and not address individual actions. Most of the fellows here act in a resposible manner but could do great harm if they so choose. The thrust of individual resonsiblity to society at large is what underlines a civilization. Laws "protecting people from themselves" turns them into sheep that must be herded.

S.C. Wack - 13-12-2006 at 12:52

Quote:

I'm willing to live with some reagent sourcing headaches if it means I don't get blown up on a bus to work.

I didn't realize that that was such a problem over there.

I don't understand what quicksilver was saying that my comment was; I do know that it refers to the contents of the paper not being public.

[Edited on 13-12-2006 by S.C. Wack]

Baphomet - 13-12-2006 at 14:46

Wack >> I agree on that point, it should be distributed freely

Quicksilver >> Sure, in a perfect world that would work really well. You might think our laws are silly but gun-related problems are practically nonexistent here.
..and btw who has a legitimate use for a sword?

The_Davster - 13-12-2006 at 17:01

Everyone has a use for sword(s). And guns, and knives. A bunch of them all together is called a liberty pile.

Or at least thats what I call it.

Actually, the stats I have read indicate that in Australia since gun control came into place violent crime has increased, wheras gun accidents have decreased. No criminal wants to attack someone potentially armed. This is paralleled in US states with CC permits vs those without.

Quote:

Laws "protecting people from themselves" turns them into sheep that must be herded.

Well said. Stupitity should not be outlawed.

Baphomet - 13-12-2006 at 17:37

I think I know the study you're referring to, there's one by the NRA using Australian crime rates as an argument against gun control.

The author manipulated his parameters in order to skew the data and make the statistics appear to validate his argument.

Check out http://www.guninformation.org/..

quicksilver - 13-12-2006 at 19:50

I would never denigrate my Austrialian friends as the US has never had such good and steadfast friends as those in Austrialia (& NZ). But stupid laws are stupid laws and the USA has enough to use an worthy examples.
Let me illustrate that the "object" does not preform any action. The focus of legislation on an object to curtail activities with that object have never been successful. Witness the USA's Harrison Narcotics Act of 1914 (and the State's "War On Drugs") as another example.
These are issues that appeal to feelings not logic. Many people believe that addiction and crime associated with such mental health issues could be curtailed by throwing an addict in jail but it prooves itself unsuccessful. That addict has choosen to use drugs; the laws didn't stop him what so ever. But the drug didn't jump off the table and into his body! Another approach is needed as the legal avenues didn't succeed; obviously. ---> Drugs have been illegal since 1914 !!! Now the idea here is NOT to give away drugs to kids or any such thing, but to alter the approach to not blaming the OBJECT. If mind altering substances were to be swept off the face of the Earth man would still find ways to self-destruct. But, try as we might we cannot bring about an end to either chemicals / objects. Laws limiting them to a greater or lesser degree simply create a black market in those items. What happened in the USA during the period that the "Brady Bill" (Military-style & large capasity magazines) weapons ban was in effect - was that sales of firearms went way up and some people profited by the laws......Gun control laws make manufacturers and middlemen richer. They also create a market where none existed in the first place (witness the boom in "hi-cap" magazine sales during that period). And note that according to the Dept of Justice the USA has not experienced a rise in violent crime since the sunset of the law. [As a correlation to the availability of military-style weapons in ratio to their availability prior]
A sword will never hurt anyone. But a person armed with a sword might do so. Can you stop a man from making a sword and then hurting someone with some legislation if he is so inclined? No. As most nations have these laws already. This is a very important point; the laws already exist for the misuse of drugs, guns, explosives, toxins, etc. The continuation of newer legislation does not serve the cause of making the planet safer. It never has....it just get votes for legislators skillful enough to make someone believe that such laws are a solution. The real solutions are much tougher and don't always appeal to the masses of voters.....so the politicos take the safe way around the problem and posture with safe legislation; they blame the symbol of the action -> the object.
This then is the concept of "objectification"; making a physical thing, a symbol of an action(s) and responsible for such actions. It's a classical advertising & marketing mechanism. The site -http://www.guninformation.org/ is a perfect example of the above. Symbols are powerful tools.

[Edited on 15-12-2006 by quicksilver]

Baphomet - 16-12-2006 at 16:43

I agree with you in principle but you're assuming that common sense is common and everyone is pure of heart.

There are many people who sadly would see our societies in ruins if they could.

Chris The Great - 16-12-2006 at 17:46

And the fact explosives are illegal right now hasn't stopped that in the least. Legislation is in place, and doesn't work, more of the same won't make it work either.

quicksilver - 17-12-2006 at 11:04

Specifically, what burns me up is the vote-getting done on the backs of tragic circumstances. The shootings and bombings are disgusting in the extreme. They may or may not continue but that is the human variable. Legislation that is redundant has no purpose but to gather votes from the frightened public. Pointing to symbols, the legislators squak loudly that THEY are doing something by making those horrid items go away. Firearms survive from hundreds of years ago when technology was in it's infancy. Swords survive from thousands of years ago. Today firearms are made with surgical stainless steel springs and poymers that will survive perhaps a thousand years or more. There are hundreds of millions of firearms in the USA alone. There may be billions of firearms worldwide. Ammunition is measured in hunderds of tons, not in numerically deliniated methods. The modern military cartridge is chemically sealed and has a shelf life beyond belief; commercial ammo even more. They will not go away due to legislation since they are objects not actions. There are millions of metric tons of ammonium nitrate used in local farm land annually. Once upon a time a stupid legislator from New York City introduced a Bill in Congress to make AN illegal. When he was reminded that to do so would hinder the legitimate use of this chemical to such a degree that food would become unaffordable he back-tracked and claimed he only meant that he wanted to make the "bomb-making" AN illegal. The rest of the session was spent on other topics......My point is that we DO live with repulsive behaviour but to go after symbols won't solve the problem and we waste time voting for folks who won't attack the elemental issues of human bahvour or at minimum discuss it in those terms....but rather stick with safe symbols of social dysfuntion.

vulture - 17-12-2006 at 14:45

Traffic regulation (speed cameras, hefty fines, imprisonment) that could probably save hundreds of lives each year is resented by most people ---> their car is their freedom! Touch my car, you touch my freedom!

And that is the very essence of the problem. The money and effort currently being spent to save a few thousand terrorism casualties each year could save millions if it was directed at battling famine, disease, etc.

Traffic accidents have killed approximately 200,000 US citizens since september 11 2001. How many US citizens have been killed by terrorist attacks in the same period? 3000?

quicksilver - 18-12-2006 at 10:41

I agree. However terror is conceptual issue. One could extrapolate that -=IF=- a dirty bomb went off then hunderds of thousands of lives would be lost. But it does not seem to be in the "now" as does automobile accidents, etc. 9-11 is often compared w/ Pearl Harbor in that lives lost were similar in number and that the USA was "attacked", etc. From my limited perspective I would venture that if a guarentee were made that if a certain legislation were passed that some # of lives would be saved most folks would love it but that can't be said. More US citizens are killed on the Nation's highways each year than the entire VietNam war period. Thus it would only make sense that driving legislation would somehow save lives but yet......people still get killed.
When I really think this issue through I see that the US has a President that is the worst communicator in that nation's history. Citizens just don't have facts. They just don't know what happening. They can only guess, given what they hear and read. THAT is a REAL problem! And there are no answers if the questions are only to be guessed at.

vulture - 18-12-2006 at 14:54

Quote:

One could extrapolate that -=IF=- a dirty bomb went off then hunderds of thousands of lives would be lost.

Ok, let's go along with this. What =IF= global warming is caused by human CO2 output and the consequences will kill millions?

What =IF= banning tobacco completely could save thousands of people?

The chances of being killed in a meteorite/asteroid/comet incident are just as high as the chances of being killed in an airplance crash. Why aren't we building laser shields to protect the earth? Or vice versa, why isn't air traffic banned?

These =IF= things are chosen completely arbitrary and that's the problem.

[Edited on 18-12-2006 by vulture]

quicksilver - 19-12-2006 at 06:55

Except I think that there may not be a total lack of arbitrary agenda....It seems so at first. but (I know it also sounds paranoid) I am beginning to believe that if something can make money or stop a competitor from making money it rides to the front of the list of things that need attention.
This is one of the areas that I have a problem with capitalism -> the direction of the Sciences.... If something can make money research grants become no problem. If something is seen as not commercially viable; it generally doesn't get touched.

Baphomet - 20-12-2006 at 19:55

True, but it's unavoidable. A great example is the list of substances that have been proven as carcinopreventative. It seems that no-one cares that we already know how to prevent cancer. But the solution is not marketed because the pharmaceutical companies would not make as much money as they currently do with their chemo- and radiation-therapy products.

It's nice to believe in ideals but there comes a point where one realises that the universe is a certain way and it's easier to go-with-the-flow. Like communism, it would be great to do things another way but it will only work when we can trust everyone to not be greedy (i.e. never).

DeAdFX - 20-12-2006 at 21:11

Quote:

Originally posted by vulture
Why aren't we building laser shields to protect the earth? Or vice versa, why isn't air traffic banned?

[Edited on 18-12-2006 by vulture]

Because everyone knows that if there is an incoming asteroid we can scronge up a few oil drillers, send them into space with a nuke and blow shit up.

[Edited on 21-12-2006 by DeAdFX]

Chris The Great - 21-12-2006 at 06:01

Nobody has died from a meteor or anything, so the chance of dying in such an event is pretty much nil (IIRC they found an egyption dog that was killed by a meteor, but no humans). However, I beleive flying is some 35 times safer than driving a car...

Sauron - 22-12-2006 at 20:50

Politicians and bureaucrats have a need to appear to be doing "something" to protect their constituents or the public at large -- even if it is inane and ineffectual and mostly irrelevant. Terrorists can and do buy or steal or divert military and commercial explosives from legitimate channels. Examples: the Bali blast was KClO4 in the hundreds of Kg not from lab sources but diverted from its use as an agricultural fertilizer. AN along with lye is used to blue steel (by gunsmiths etc) as well as a very important fertilizer and of course a blasting agent in civil engineering, mining etc. When chemists buy AN they buy reagent grade or analytical grade far too costly for misuse. AN fertilizer is sold in 25 Kg sacks or larger fiber drums. And that grade is cheap. Where I live, a company has no trouble buying a few Kg or lab grade AN, but if I were to order industrial quantities even through my corporation, I'd need to justify to the Ministry of Industry what I need it for. Here this is not an egregious situation -- and yes we have our own problems with Islamic extremists in our deep South. In short I regard most attempts to restrict access to "politically incorrect" chemicals as creeping nanny-state nonsense, whether such measures are focused on the long since lost war on drugs, or the struggle to cope with and counter radicals in our midst (the human kind)

Back in Washington DC in the 80s I was peripherally involved in raising the alarm about terrorist exploitation of military type chemical agents. I now regret that I was so involved. IMO there still has not ever been a terrorist chemical attack, because the Aum incident in Tokyo, while it was a chemical attack, does not meet any of the various proper definitions of terrorism. Terrorism is a crime of intent. That is, whether an act is terrorism depends entirely on the motives and not on the methods or the outcome. The Aum were/are a religious nut group but their agenda was not political hence not terroristic. Criminal yes, terrorist no. The distinction is real.

Another example. The furor earlier this year over a book detailing a purported AQ plot to gas the NYC subways with HCN. The supposed plot was called off by AQ's #2 six weeks before it was supposed to be implemented, or so we are led to believe.

HCN is not an exotic compound. It is a major industrial chemical and feestock and an industrial fumigant especially against rodents on ships. Its toxic properties are public information and well understood. The chemistry of its generation is well understood. I studied the proposition that small portable HCN generators could produce enough HCN vapor to achieve a lethal concentration in a well defined closed space like a single subway car and I concluded that the required apparatus would be far too large and heavy to be portable by individuals and especially to be surresptitiously introduced into the subway system. We are talking about refrigerator sized not backpacks. Furthermore HCN is readily recognizable by its smell (burnt almonds) at subacute concentartions. People would stop the train and exit the affected car(s). Panic perhaps, injuries maybe, but mass casualties no. Remember, the Aum, with an agent a few orders of magnitude more lethal than HCN, only msnsged to kill about a dozen people in their subway attack.

Conclusion: AQ called this off because it would not have been effective, it was simply a bad plan.

Many jurisdictions do ask a few questions, or expect the supplier to when selling cyanides even in lab quantities. That's not unreasonable, as long as they don't get too burdensome and bureaucratic about it.

quicksilver - 23-12-2006 at 09:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Sauron

(snipped for brevity)

Conclusion: AQ called this off because it would not have been effective, it was simply a bad plan.

Many jurisdictions do ask a few questions, or expect the supplier to when selling cyanides even in lab quantities. That's not unreasonable, as long as they don't get too burdensome and bureaucratic about it.

This is well put. - We see continually that measures to "control" the item is at loss due to those who would break the law - break the law.
What may be needed is a "big picture" intervention that is bi-partisan so that it does not become a politcal agenda but a life-saving one. Where would it start? That may be the biggest issue. When the schools in the Middle East teach hate, that is a serious issue and one that should be met with a serious concern.
I honestly don't know what the United nations actually does anymore. It could address educational issues as well as prompting industrial development in countries that can't feed themselves. Food give-aways in countries like Somolia didn't work out due to theft of the food itself. I won't say that there are easy answers to thse problems but there may be simple ones. The actions of war-lords preying off the starving should be dealt with sternly and not by a single country acting as the sole representitive of the UN.
The issue of teaching hate in a school system should be addressed. I can't imagine anyone defending such an action, but I could be wrong......Why do we let thiese issues go unchallenged? Are that the "cultural" issues of the specific country so unique that they cannot find common ground with the rest of the world?
"Feel-Good" laws haven't worked that well. I don't propose that we simply do away with them but to add more and more of them is to posture at a threat when we really need to stand up to it. Witness the CPSC attempt at controling chemicals to deal with the "M80" issue and protecting children from fireworks....

[Edited on 23-12-2006 by quicksilver]

Sauron - 23-12-2006 at 17:51

Politicians love going after soft targets and inanimate objects. Going after malefactors is too hard for them. The public unfortunately has been led to be afraid of chemicals other than the familiar household ones. The chemical industry and petroleum industries have been demonized by decades of environmentalist twaddle starting perhaps with Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring" rant against DDT. Efforts by ACS and others to educate the public to all the good that science and chemical technology have done in the last couple of centuries have been drowned out to an overwhelming extent by the Luddites of the world. But of course I am preaching to the choir here!

As to the UN don't get me started.

Same with terrorism. Terrorism needs to be extirpated, But in our free socities we are unwilling so far to even uncouple our news media from its unholy symbiosis with the terrorists. The media thrives on bad news, terrorists crave publicity. They give each other what they want and need. It's unconscionable. The media are licensed to act for the public good, but generally instead they are for-profit and act for the bottom line. Imagine just for a moment: suppose the newspapers and radio and TV were simply to decide to never cover a single act of terrorism ever again. Think of the consequences. THE TERRORISTS WOULD BE DENID TYHEIR BULLY PULPIT. It's axiomatic that the purpose of terror is to terrify (said Lenin, who pretty much invented modern terrorism). Well, no coverage, and a terrorist act reverts to being a local tragedy and not a global one.

I admit that this is a farfetched situation, people will scream for the public's right to know and freedom of the press. However the press OUGHT to be free to act responsibly and in the public interest and not solely to fatten their pockets. The press OUGHT to be free to STOP EMPOWERING the terrorists. This decision need not be imposed by government and maybe cannot be in our free societies BUT it could be self imposed as a matter of consensus.

As a corollary, we would also need to figure out how to keep the terrorists from exploiting the internet, and how to silence news media with common cause to the terrorists like Al Jazeera. That might be even more far fetched. But even without that, let's lobby the media to stop empowering the bad guys by yielding to them the idiot box and the front pages of our newspapers.

Remember, the bombs and guns are the PROPS of the terrorists not the weapons. Our own news media IS their weapon. The people they murder are not their victims. WE are their victims. The living. Their aims are political not tactical.

nightflight - 24-12-2006 at 12:35

We should always be remebered on what our society is good for, and this is to enable us to live a life that´s better as a living on our own, but with the most freedom and justice we would have, as we were living on our own.

When we invent a system into this society it will work by its natural means and law, be it a car, to call for even streets and fuel stations, calling to be a symbol for the drivers authentication with the design, be it the inevitable law, that there´s a possibility to die of a car or in a car accident, when there´ll be cars driving.

Ok, we´ve come so far and cars will drive unless there´re no more solar cells, no fuel what so ever, no logistic to fuel them , one could say, cars will be there until the end of the civilisation we know.

this is true for every invention, that´s been made and works in this enviroment we´re creating.

So, when there´s a reasonable chance to avoid accidents or the harm being done in it, there´re reasonable means to invent, like street signs, speed limits and/or an proper education, based on evidents and statistics, to say, ok, most accidents happen with children at a crossing, so educate them, to be prudent at crossings and get traffic lights at crossing where children might cross the street frequently, or where´re no lights, teach the parent to teach their children to be extra careful.

one could sign a law only cars to be built that look like a Porsche so that accidents aren´t that harmful to pedesrtians as with a Hummer.

Here comes the freedom of choice in play and the right to chose and spent one´s money on things, a freeminded person cerated and offers sellls, what essentially is the heart of our social-economical system, ever since.

But there´s no sense at all in investing in billions for military means and fighting wars, when economical means are so powerful, which vice versa is the reason for war.
It´s power over people and money.

The one results in the other and the whole machinery is being abused to fulfill the means of religious, greedy, or whatever powers, who in turn, tell the people who´s the bad man, they call the shots an we execute, for a society, that has peverted so much and who use economic power on the inhabitants of the state, to fullfill this pervertedness.

I think this whole system of perversion has gotten so far beyond imagination, you don´t have to use concetration camps, you use the avarage peverted Dr. Mengele. in a normal job, avarage juges that youé chosen and round up to do this job in the interest of the powers, to execute the shots called, with a minimum of personel, and normal accidents and normal "treatments" amid "careeers", without obvious megalomaniacism of the executors, without uniforms and Sturm Abteilung intimidation, with only a few guys operating, TV as the opiate, some luxery to tranquilize the middle class and some american dream guys with million dollar contracts on tv, to blind and deaf us all, and some fucked-up crazy, that we ought to hate, teh poor and yeearnig to ignore the criticicsm to be overseen, instead of changing the government or our own ways in our luxory, or our agonism of poverty and helplessness.

The funny thing is, we all could live much happier and more freely without all this mess going on, with the exactly same system of socio-economics.

So, to go more into detail, with chemicals, laws always strike on personal freeedom, may this be a nobel minded or the feedom of a mass murderer.
When sich peolpel wnat to abuse something it´s no unse in restrictign the means of abuse, when a gruop of sane people is abusing a mean to kill others, who didn´t chose to die for their thing, or to take the risk of dieing in the name of this adventure, we should change and take things going on with our powers and hanlding things, more seriously plus restirting obvious means of terrorism, i.e. not selling dynamite to terrorist.

But thena aghain,w e should be so much of a team, that we should trust and further the talents of our own and shouldnt restrict chemiclas, if one needed them for his researchm when he shows the wisdom he´s been given to, is applied in a constructive and not greeedy way.

So there one even shouldn´t need a degree, he might get one for his inventions, but degrees and grades shouldn´t be used as a restriction to education or a career, cause that´s just where instrumentalization and greed and power over people and human maliciousy and objectivity are going to start, and abuse of power and people is possible in every way.

think about it! if one looses only because of his own faults and doesn´t get anything done ´til his mid-thirtys, but is getting all the rights and respect he deserves and all th eoffers and opportunitys, for simply being the human being he is , he might wake up and be more productive, than if he was forced to work in a fabric for fake fun vomit instead of a machine that could have done it better, beating up his wife and drinking, with no chance of a drug of his choice, that could change him for good.

When a person, being mobbed, even though, this person had talent, that wasn´t rewarded, because he had a gross allergy, disturbing the class and a too large nose and the wrong religion and sexuality, whatever, chances are good, he´ll use his talents to ruin some lives in a special discret way or to build a bomb, if the latter issues weren´t already used on said preson before by peole with a similar way of live or people likng to abuse their power over others for money, laws, agendas, whatsowever.

Criteria for Ranking common explosive chemicals.gif - 17kB

IrC - 27-3-2010 at 19:41

Quote: Originally posted by Baphomet

I agree with you in principle but you're assuming that common sense is common and everyone is pure of heart.

There are many people who sadly would see our societies in ruins if they could.

To quote another, the "creeping nanny-state nonsense" is where you have arrived and too many with your mindset was the horse you rode on. We could take all the criminals and put them on an island. Oh wait we did that. Many years later they ended up where you are now. I forgot that WAS your country I was talking about. Or do they revise history there as they do here. Yes I am trying to look at your true history to see how you and so many arrived at the way of thinking you now possess. So what did all those "criminals" do I ask. They built a great country out of a very hostile environment. You had your evils with the way the Aborigines were treated but the US was likely worse with the Indians here. Yet in the end a great nation came into being until in my mind the terrible mistake of complete civilian disarmament occurred. Now you have no way to protect yourself from either criminals or a government out of control from it's agenda of over control. Was crime so high there. I doubt it. This issue is similar to the topic, over control of chemistry as a hobby or a profession on a private basis. The laws were made yet the evidence of the reason for the laws is not there. Or are you trying to say you really had devolved into a "mad max" society. I do not remember news stories of such a number and impact, i.e. I don't recall hearing of home bombers so out of control either the current nor future laws could be justified, not to mention the way of thinking you exhibit here.

You stated "you're assuming that common sense is common and everyone is pure of heart". Let us call "common sense is common and everyone is pure of heart" the rule, and the "mad maxers" (the anarchists) the exception. To justify the laws as well as to justify the position you espouse only one thing needs to be considered, the statistics. How many people are decent but like to play with chemistry, play with their sword collection, or keep gun's to protect themselves and their property. Are they the rule, are the anarchists the exception. Correct me if I have been missing recent news over there but I believe the criminals are still statistically the exception, not the rule. Or am I wrong about that. Every nation on the planet including the US is heading into your mindset and over controlling every aspect of peoples lives from guns and swords to chemicals.

What I see day by day is the laws only affect the rule and do nothing to the exception. Everywhere on earth violence is spiraling out of control. Yet it is virtually 100 percent the exception causing this, the criminals, not the average decent peoples, the rule. So what good are the laws and what justification can you provide for the way you think in the posts I have read here. You sound like we should all sit on the couch never playing with chemicals, (or guns) simply because one of us "might" go mad max and blow you up on the buss on your way to work. If you have not realized it by now you never will.

The exception is going to blow you up if your number is called and it matters not how many laws you think are needed. Criminals are by nature law breakers and decent folk are by nature law keepers. The only factor important here is the statistics. How many people are evil and how many are not. You make it sound like none of us is decent and this I see from the quote I made of your own words. So therefore all guns, swords, and chemicals must be done away with for no other reason than your poor outlook on your fellow man (or woman). You see all people as potentially evil therefore they all must live in your "creeping nanny-state nonsense" of a world and the only reason is the fear you exist in.

The problem is your terror of terror denies the statistics. That is, with the laws increasing out of control so is the violence world wide. How is that working for you I must wonder. In general how is it working for anyone on earth I also must wonder. If I look at the statistics I must conclude "it is not working at all". All it is doing is making people who want these laws such as yourself feel safer all while people such as yourself are becoming day by day less safe. All this while people such as myself have more trouble playing with our guns, our swords, or our chemicals.

If there is a need for laws they should be fair and reasonable. I do not think I should be able to rent a truck and load it with enough ammonium nitrate and diesel fuel to level a city block but the fears of others are trying to keep me from playing with a pound of it and this is where your right to feel safe is vetoing my right to play and experiment. This I have a problem with.

quicksilver - 28-3-2010 at 12:09

There are TWO aspects that will never work comfortably together. I have once heard this whole discussion encapsulated this way:

* "A man would have the right to sing at night; but to the point of disturbing the sleep of his neighbor, he is curtailed from doing so."
But where one man goes to bed at 10pm and another at 12pm, where is the "rule of law" (the community's decision) to draw the line? If at one level; another group feels cheated, etc, etc. Not all people can be pleased with rules set by others, therefore a law is made via the numerically larger group.

* To achieve control of the numerically larger group the concept of politics is created. Politics by it's very nature is manipulation to enhance control.

From a "crime control" standpoint:

One man's fear of attack places demands on another man who has no desire to attack (but does understand & wishes to be protected), therefore that man feels threatened by the imposition of a rule or law which keeps him from protecting himself. We have been told (by politicians) that we do not need to protect ourselves in a civilized society; that the Police will do that for us.

We realize the intrinsic falsehood of this - if only through a numeric model.

In the end, one man wants a sword (firearm, club, skunk gland, whatever...) to protect himself - that another man sees as a threat in that the power that rests in that sword - is not his, but his neighbor's.

And the Politician's use of FEAR continues on BOTH sides of the issue. Not because of the logic of [a particular] fear but because a politician's job is to be re-elected.

argyrium - 28-3-2010 at 12:31

Reduced to two words: liberal projection.

JohnWW - 28-3-2010 at 13:36

Liberal?? I would call it Fa$cist!

argyrium - 28-3-2010 at 15:23

"Liberalism" and Fascism are not opposites. They both are forms of socialism, and ... "progressive". Both imply and require the State to strongly hold and assert power over the governed.

I just want to be left alone...

Anecdotally, I live most of the time in Hawai'i were the state would put me in jail for a very long time for protecting my family or me from a lethal threat - even in my own home were I to use a firearm to defend/confront an intruder. Hawai'i is one of our more "progressive" states.

"To Keep and Bear Arms

An 82-year-old woman was approached by a man in Sierra Vista, Arizona, in a Walmart parking lot when he began to threaten her. "This is your day," the man told her. "You are too old to be alive anyway." He then took her cane away and began beating her with it. However, he was unaware that she was carrying her handgun, which she quickly pulled from her purse and began firing at the suspect. Witnesses nearby were alerted by the gunshots and came to help the elderly woman. The suspect was taken into custody by police shortly afterward. Impending charges include attempted murder. The courageous woman later told the media, "If I go naturally or to a sickness or something, fine. I'm ready to go, but I'm not ready to let some idiot like that take me out."

"when seconds count, the Police are only min. away"

She'd be locked up were this to occur here.

Both IrC and quicksilver are spot-on, me thinks.

Best.

The more control our governments exert, in the area of chemophobia/anti-drug/terror, whatever, the less we will be able to enjoy the freedoms of private experimentation.

[Edited on 29-3-2010 by argyrium]

Rosco Bodine - 28-3-2010 at 16:32

The subtle point should not be lost upon anyone
that in response to the largely rhetorical question
" what are my true, bona fide, inalienable rights? "
the more honest answer is found more often in
the askers own assertion of what are their rights,
rather than in any answer whatever to be gotten from another,
except perhaps an answer from God who would more
often be the giver of not only rights but of everything else
that others would try to take away by usurpations
disrespecting the highest authority, and substituting
their own ideas instead for what is wisdom.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmfY_ezb9j8&feature=relat... Here Beside Me

[Edited on 29-3-2010 by Rosco Bodine]

Ramiel - 28-3-2010 at 21:24

Rosco, your answer was unintelligible to me and a few others. Either sleep on it or stop posting in delirium.

More broadly, all please be aware of the global rule against political debates. I don't want this to turn into cathartic socialist bashing again because your goddamn president passed a healthcare bill.

don't start throwing terms like Liberalism, liberalism and communism around if you haven't first looked 'em up, or I'll fucking delete your posts.

Regards

MagicJigPipe - 28-3-2010 at 21:31

I do feel that there are certain rights that, without completely rational justification (which is rare for me I think), should always be.

Not only is the "nanny-state" nonsense not very effective but it denies the rights of people even more than necessary. In a perfect society individuals would be able to own nuclear weapons if they wish, because no one would ever use them in a way that resulted in the suffering of other human beings. Obviously we don't live in a perfect society because we all know it would soon be dismantled if something like that were to happen.

Sometimes I like to take the utilitarian approach and say, "Greatest happiness, greatest number of people (or vice versa)". But what does that mean?

I am with the last few posters in "what I feel should be" but it is possible to argue that, in some cases, that utilitarian model conflicts with large amounts of freedom (which causes greater happiness, doing what you want or not being injured? for example).

The only way to, through pure "logic", rationalize rights that can't be taken away is to say that a god gave them to us. But is that really logical or rational? Not really methinks.

So, I am at an impasse. I know the way I think things should be but with no 100% rational justification for it. Damn.

P.S. Rosco's post was...transluscent. I could understand it but it was a little muddled.

[Edited on 3-29-2010 by MagicJigPipe]

Rosco Bodine - 29-3-2010 at 08:22

Daring to mix philosophy, law, and religion is bound to result
in an expression which sounds like convoluted meaning of life
kind of stuff. I would beg everyones pardon for my ineptness for failing
to speak with greater perceived clarity, for my lack of skill at lying
that comes only with long practice at politics, admitting freely I am no politician.

Do you even have a "right" to have a heartbeat, for as long as you shall live ?

[Edited on 29-3-2010 by Rosco Bodine]

hissingnoise - 29-3-2010 at 08:53

Quote:

In a perfect society individuals would be able to own nuclear weapons if they wish, because no one would ever use them in a way that resulted in the suffering of other human beings.

Perfect!
Mr Butterfingers has added to his arsenal by buying another 500 megaton device!
But seriously, in a less imperfect world all politicians would be fitted with a device which would deliver an excruciatingly painful sub-fatal electric shock whenever said politicians uttered a falsehood.
They would also be required to undergo regular I.Q. tests, the results of which would be available to all. . .

quicksilver - 30-3-2010 at 13:25

Some years back there was a rather strong push for term limits in various elected offices. The idea being that if someone simply COULD NOT BE a career politician - that the bastards would have to focus on why they are there in the first place. Continued power of that nature allows money to fall from the sky if networking is done as a side-by-side with re-election focus...& we, the public are the looser as a result.

Personally, I would not define myself as a Conservative or a Liberal because that would mean (to me) that I fall lock-step w/ some predefined perspective. Personally, I would not "vote Party" because there are a lot of people on BOTH sides of the picture that are just too immature, stupid, or foolhardy to get my vote.

[Edited on 31-3-2010 by quicksilver]