Paintball laws in RI

[CoolHand]

Your response was a lot closer to the Nuh-uh you mentioned earlier

Yeah, I know. I just said what I did 'cause I knew it would get a rise out of you, which it did.

maybe you stand to lose something by additional legislation? why else would you be so moved? me, i have nothing to lose.

THIS is exactly what I'm talking about.

You don't have anything to lose, so you're more than willing to give up OTHER people's rights/freedoms/money/whatever. See where I'm going with this?

I have nothing to lose from this legislation either, I don't live in RI, I am very over 18, and I don't play on public land or haul my gear around assembled, gased, and full of paint, either.

I am just very much against the goverment saying what any of us should or shouldn't do, just because YOU think it's a good idea.

We don't need the government to pass a law, we need to do the **** we should have been doing all along. If you think that a law on the books will make slack pro-shops teach every new kid about PB guns, then you are so naive that it's pointless to continue this discussion.

The only way to force compliance is to have enforcement agencies, which cost money. Who pays for that? The only way to have a certification class is to have it hosted by some "approved" agency or seller. Who pays for that? Who checks up on everyone to make sure they're doing what they should be? What do you do if they aren't? You going to send someone to prison for skipping the safety lecture? That'll solve the problem.

This whole thing revolves around the lazy trying to find a lazy way to enforce their will on other lazy people. "Well, I'm too lazy to make sure every new guy I see gets the safety lecture, lets have a magical new government agency take care of it."

I value my independence above all else. If that means I have to walk a big circle around a smoker to be out of his haze, so be it. It's his right to smoke, and it's my right to walk around him. It is NOT my right to make him stop smoking because I don't like it.

As far as I am concerned, the person who has the problem is responsible for fixing it. You don't like smoke? Fine. Go somewhere else.

But, everyone with your mindset doesn't think like that, Noooo sir. They see a guy smoking, go up to him in order to be exposed to the smoke, make a big stink about it, and then lobby to make the government make that guy stop smoking in any place you may go, or think about going, or think about thinking about going. Etc, etc, etc, etc . . . . . .

That kind of thinking leads to millions of useless laws that cost tons of money to enforce, and who only do good for a portion of the population.

If you would think a little less "ME ME ME", and a little more "ME THEM ME", we wouldn't have half the problems we do now.

Here endeth the sermon.

[CoolHand]

QFT.



I was with you up to this point.

Smoking happens to be a health issue, a public one at that. And until its possible to separate 2nd hand smoke from the air I breathe, I have every right as a voter to vote for the passage of a law making it illegal to smoke in public and quasi-public establishments.

Your rights to smoke in public places dont outweigh my rights to go to public places without jeopordizing my health. And saying "you dont have to go there" isnt the answer. The same can be said to the smoker--except that the smoker is causing the health issue.

You want to drink yourself silly? Fine. You want to drink and drive on public highways...its not your right. You want to smoke, you have that right. You want to smoke in public and quasi-public establishments...its not your right.

As long as your rights dont impede on others, you should have every right to do what you want.

Yeah, I'll give you that one. I should have been more clear. What I mean is if there is a way for you to not breath the smoke, that doesn't involve you not going there, or forcing him not to go there, you ought to take it.

One guy smoking in a mall is a lot different than 400 people smoking in a tiny resturaunt.

That all said, I don't see why it should be a problem for someone NOT to smoke if someplace where people can't get away from it. That used to be part of THEM being considerate towards others.

If everyone would just pay 30% more attention to the people around them, we wouldn't have to hash this kind of stuff out (not that we really HAVE to hash it out now, but you know what I mean).

I dunno, it just makes me angry in a monkey-hate-fire kinda way when people want to force their will onto others when it's really not necessary.

You cannot regulate the stupidity out of people. To try to, is only to invite the invention of a better idiot.

[Lohman446]

One of the tenants of ethical hedonism requires that your actions do not interfere with the pursuit of happiness / health of those around you. The classic example. If I want to poison my own kool-aid, no big deal. If I want to poison the town water supply... not allowed

There is a pretty good argument to be had of smoking "poisoning" the air around you, and if that is the public air supply, it goes against the base tenants.

[CoolHand]

One of the tenants of ethical hedonism requires that your actions do not interfere with the pursuit of happiness / health of those around you. The classic example. If I want to poison my own kool-aid, no big deal. If I want to poison the town water supply... not allowed

There is a pretty good argument to be had of smoking "poisoning" the air around you, and if that is the public air supply, it goes against the base tenants.

Also true.

I'm not a smoker, but at the same time, I don't mind going to the other side of a room when one sets next to me at a bar.

[Lohman446]

Also true.

I'm not a smoker, but at the same time, I don't mind going to the other side of a room when one sets next to me at a bar.

I don't smoke and I don't care if those around me do. Considering my lifestyle and attitude I don't expect to die of old age / natural causes.

[dave p]

We don't need the government to pass a law, we need to do the **** we should have been doing all along. If you think that a law on the books will make slack pro-shops teach every new kid about PB guns, then you are so naive that it's pointless to continue this discussion.


If you would think a little less "ME ME ME", and a little more "ME THEM ME", we wouldn't have half the problems we do now.

Here endeth the sermon.

while i see what you are saying...

the problem is, the industry and the players are not handling this themselves. how many regulations have been tossed aside in the interest of greed.

there is not even agreement about the proper way to cheat acceptably, so we are going to police ourselves?

This whole thing revolves around the lazy trying to find a lazy way to enforce their will on other lazy people. "Well, I'm too lazy to make sure every new guy I see gets the safety lecture, lets have a magical new government agency take care of it

Who checks up on everyone to make sure they're doing what they should be? What do you do if they aren't?

this is exactly what happens on the field no? no one is accountable for their actions, its up to a ref to catch you, or call you out. otherwise you play on. the very thing you complain about is an accepted component of the game. players leave it to someone else to enforce the rules that they could enforce themselves, but choose not to in self interest.

the game so far has shown that it is really not capable of or willing to regulate itself.

[CoolHand]

while i see what you are saying...

the problem is, the industry and the players are not handling this themselves. how many regulations have been tossed aside in the interest of greed.

there is not even agreement about the proper way to cheat acceptably, so we are going to police ourselves?



this is exactly what happens on the field no? no one is accountable for their actions, its up to a ref to catch you, or call you out. otherwise you play on. the very thing you complain about is an accepted component of the game. players leave it to someone else to enforce the rules that they could enforce themselves, but choose not to in self interest.

the game so far has shown that it is really not capable of or willing to regulate itself.

While I do agree that the people who play like that are the same ones I'm *****ing about, they do not make up a majority of the players in PB now. They are just the very vocal/visible jerkoff minority.

The great majority of players I know, and fields I have been to, fall in the good side of the equation. For every asshat I know, there are at least 10 others who are wonderful humans. Same with fields. For every crappy field I've seen, I've been to five others that were good.

We do not need the federal/state government to make laws and put people in jail over ANYTHING to do with paintball. There are so many horrible things done every day in the world that make the absolute worst case in paintball look like a walk on the beach. We don't need to take time/effort/energy/money away from those bad things to police paintball.

The government is not some all knowing nanny that can come in and clean up any mess. Point of fact, in many cases, they actually make things worse.

Who do you really think cares if the sport continues to be an enjoyable pass time:

1) The folks who have spent their lives creating said pass time.

OR

2) Stuffy old men in suits who need something that they can hold onto as an "issue" to justify their inflated salaries and far reaching powers.

If we can't even manage a damned game, we are in way worse trouble than even I think.

[shartley]

[CoolHand]

Well, honestly Sam, I really do think that there doesn't need to be any laws at all to govern the game of paintball. Now, that is not to say that shooting up folks/property that don't want to play is part of the game. We already have laws that say you shouldn't do that, and set forth penalties if you do. I see no reason to make another set of rules that brings the law INTO the game as it is played on the field. It's simply ridiculous to think that you need law enforcement present while the game is being played.

If we get to the point where there are actual laws that govern the playing of paintball, I'm taking up underwater basket weaving, or something else that is far less of an irritation.

At any given time of the day or night, I have about 40 laws that are telling me to do/not do things that I already know you shouldn't do. I don't need a baby sitter, I don't need a pencil pusher following me around to make sure I tow the line, and I certainly don't need an overzealous cop at my favorite paintball field.

THAT is what I am saying. You can poke holes using the wording all you like, but that is just semantics, which amounts to mental masterbation at best. You know what I am saying, and if you don't agree with it, that's fine, we can agree to disagree and still be friends.

[shartley]

Well, honestly Sam, I really do think that there doesn't need to be any laws at all to govern the game of paintball. Now, that is not to say that shooting up folks/property that don't want to play is part of the game. We already have laws that say you shouldn't do that, and set forth penalties if you do. I see no reason to make another set of rules that brings the law INTO the game as it is played on the field. It's simply ridiculous to think that you need law enforcement present while the game is being played.

If we get to the point where there are actual laws that govern the playing of paintball, I'm taking up underwater basket weaving, or something else that is far less of an irritation.

At any given time of the day or night, I have about 40 laws that are telling me to do/not do things that I already know you shouldn't do. I don't need a baby sitter, I don't need a pencil pusher following me around to make sure I tow the line, and I certainly don't need an overzealous cop at my favorite paintball field.

THAT is what I am saying. You can poke holes using the wording all you like, but that is just semantics, which amounts to mental masterbation at best. You know what I am saying, and if you don't agree with it, that's fine, we can agree to disagree and still be friends.

[CoolHand]

Yup.

I have suffered from a general inability to express myself clearly and concisely the first time 'round for many weeks now. I do not know from what it stems, but I can assure you that it is irritating to say the least.

Maybe I should just be quiet until it goes away. . . . . . . . .

Nah.

[OneEyedPimp]

But you would have earlier thrown out those laws (many assault and vandalism laws were passed after 1912) as unconstitutional.

I said "almost every."

[OneEyedPimp]

I was with you up to this point.

Smoking happens to be a health issue, a public one at that. And until its possible to separate 2nd hand smoke from the air I breathe, I have every right as a voter to vote for the passage of a law making it illegal to smoke in public and quasi-public establishments.

Your rights to smoke in public places dont outweigh my rights to go to public places without jeopordizing my health. And saying "you dont have to go there" isnt the answer. The same can be said to the smoker--except that the smoker is causing the health issue.

You want to drink yourself silly? Fine. You want to drink and drive on public highways...its not your right. You want to smoke, you have that right. You want to smoke in public and quasi-public establishments...its not your right.

As long as your rights dont impede on others, you should have every right to do what you want.

Here is where "rights" get a little complicated. My personal opinion on the matter is that public land is not that owned by the"government," but by private business owners giving their permission for people to use their land. I believe that the "government" should not own land, or highways for that matter, because taxes are theft {unless premission is explicitly given(which we give by signing our W2's)}.

A smoker does not violate anyones rights by smoking, unless he violates someone's airspace by being in close proximity to someone who does not wish to have their air contaminated. To solve both parties wishes, the "public land" is designated either smoking or non-smoking. This designation is done by the property owners. Each party respects the wishes of the property owners. If they do not want to respect those wishes, they simply "shop else where." Problem solved.

This solution works because the property owners are able to say what can and can't be done one their property.

[Lohman446]

I said "almost every."

I still maintain that the states do have the rights to enact certain laws... there is not a strong argument at the state level.

[OneEyedPimp]

I still maintain that the states do have the rights to enact certain laws... there is not a strong argument at the state level.

I should have clairified myself, I am referring to _federal_ laws. I believe in states doing whatever they want provided it does not violate what the constitution set out.