[Bruce in West Oz]

Owners get 60 days to give up arms

Failure punishable by up to 10 years in jail

Apiradee Treerutkuarkul

Owners of illegal firearms will have 60 days to surrender their weapons without facing legal action, a House extraordinary committee scrutinising a gun control bill said yesterday.

The panel has approved the government-sponsored bill giving a 60-day amnesty to people who agree to return illegal weapons and fireworks to the state, said panel chairman Gen Rattana Chalermsanyakorn.

Failure to hand over illegal weapons within the 60-day period is an offence punishable by a 10-year jail term and a 20,000-baht fine under the bill, which has already passed its first reading in the lower house.

The panel has already tabled the bill for parliament approval. It would be treated as an urgent bill to be processed within this month as it was considered crucial to the government's crackdown on drugs and dark influence, said Gen Rattana.

He denied any link between the push for the bill's passage and the government's policy to ban sales and possession of firearms within six years.

http://www.bangkokpost.com/News/11Sep2003_news10.html

[Mark Tyson]

You think the thugs who run Bangkok at night are going to turn in their guns? You think the drug lords in the northwest Golden Triangle area are going to either?

[OF]

With every country that goes down the toilet and disarms their citizens it becomes more and more vital that we preserve the freedom we have here.

The 2nd Amendment is the most single important sentance ever written in the history of mankind. It should be treated as such.

- Gabe

[mercedesrules]

It would be treated as an urgent bill to be processed within this month as it was considered crucial to the government's crackdown on drugs and dark influence, said Gen Rattana.

Also, we must recognize that the war on drugs will be the path to our loss of gun rights. We must oppose it immediately, entirely and forever.

Just a few days ago, "Patriot Two"-type legislation was justified by saying that we already allow the same thing for drug enforcement.

And, what the heck is "dark influence"? :confused:

MR

[Art Eatman]

merc, "dark influence" means disagreeing with the Ruling Elite. Arguing against the righteousness of TPTB. Not believing that those wise and wonderful folks inside the Beltway know better than do you as to what's best for you.

Got it?

:), Art

[Standing Wolf]

I wonder whether Thailand has banned child prostitution yet.

[makarov1]

Over in Thailand. Prostitution.....Good! Guns........Bad!

Here in the U.S. Abortion, pornography.......Good! Guns......Bad!


I know I run the risk of oversimplification here, but then again, the liberal mind is not too complicated, no matter what part of the world you're in.

[Blueduck]

Also, we must recognize that the war on drugs will be the path to our loss of gun rights. We must oppose it immediately, entirely and forever.

Must disagree. Assisting a larger portion of the population to become crack and meth heads will only reduce rights for those of us who choose to live reponsibly.

Nearly all rules, laws, regulations and "liability issues" are already aimed at the very lowest possibly denominator. No point in lowering the bar IMHO.

[TallPine]

"dark influence" ... I'm sure Ashcroft will be jumping on that one shortly :rolleyes:

[CWL]

Yet another country to totally ban firearms...

Has everyone failed to read the oft-repeated wording "illegal guns" in this article?

It is legal to purchase, own and (sometimes) carry firearms in Thailand. You can browse gun shops in Thailand, they are family owned. I have been lent firearms while visiting border areas.

Unfortunately, Thailand also happens to be a major arms-trafficing and drug-trafficing country. Thailand is the major source of illicit weapons to neighboring countries, supplying firearms, military weapons and munitions for decades. From strongmen like Myanmar to drug trafficers to rebel/terrorist groups, private armies and warlords. It is well-known and often reported how corrupt military commanders and regional governors/bureacrats are involved in these acts.

Total banning hasn't happened yet. Probably never will.

[sandy4570]

The new law will only permit two gun for each person -one long gun and one handgun only and they have to have permitt and registration.Of course if a person profession is

[makarov1]

No doubt that Thailand is the most democratic country in the entire region. However, once the leftists take over (to the extent that they have in the PRK, PRM, Ill-Annoy, etc.), the Thai criminal element will quickly gain the upper hand and have more of an influence in the everyday lives of ordinary Thai citizens. Thai criminals are very well armed, very well financed, and very well connected to Thai govt. officials. Thai tax collections and other govt. revenue can't hold a candle to the money that drug traffikers in the region make in profits.

I've traveled throughout the region(Thailand, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia) extensively and there is something about that region that breeds sheeple.
It must be the SouthEast Asian mindset, but the region has had numerous terrible regimes that were devoted to anti-freedom ideologies. The people followed them as if they were in a trance. Only when the people were disarmed did they realize it was too late to fight. War is a dirty, tough business, and if the sheeple didn't want to get their hands dirty, then they were partly responsible for their miserable plight. Collectivism was and still is a flaw in asian thinking, and Southeast Asians have paid a terrible price throughout history by not placing any value on individual liberty.

[feedthehogs]

Turn in the fireworks?

There goes the new year!

[c_yeager]

Owners of illegal firearms will have 60 days to surrender their weapons without facing legal action,

Uh guys, it seems to me that no MORE guns were made illegal with this law. In fact the way i read it all it does is provide an AMNESTY to people who turn in ther ALREADY ILLEGAL weapons. So, in other words it is in effect SUSPENDING the penalty for possesing an illegal weapon if you turn it in. Now i realize that this isnt exactly great but it is a heck of a long way from "a total ban on firearms."

[Bruce in West Oz]

Maybe comprehension is my strong suit, but doesn't THIS:

... government's policy to ban sales and possession of firearms within six years.

indicate a TOTAL ban?

[telomerase]

>Assisting a larger portion of the population to become crack and meth heads will only reduce rights for those of us who choose to live reponsibly.

Blueduck, are you going to run out and buy some crack if Drug Prohibition ends? For that matter, is there anything stopping you from doing it right now? No and no, of course. But there is something stopping you from buying a cancer cure: FDA restrictions that make drugs cost 800 million to get through development:

http://freedom.orlingrabbe.com/lfetimes/federal_data_proposal.htm

Would George Washington or Thomas Jefferson let Congress tell them what drugs they were "allowed" to have? What treatments that their terminally ill relatives could use? No, because they were men, not sheep.

Either you own your bloodstream or the politicians do. Which is it?

[Mark Tyson]

Are you saying that the 'southeast Asian mindset' is to mindlessly follow their leaders into tyranny? Have you ever met any Montangards?

[telomerase]

I know a few Hmong, a few Chinese-ethnic boat people (my uncle took them in for six months while they got jobs), and there's a Khmer family that run the nearest convenience store in rural Ellis county.

None of these people are as mindlessly domesticated as the average American.

BTW, it is probably not a good idea for us to be too hard on Third Worlders for not overthrowing their bad governments, since it's our taxes that pay for their dictators:

http://freedom.orlingrabbe.com/lfetimes/dependent_dictators.htm

[makarov1]

Ethnic groups such as the Montangards in the hill country and the Okinawans in the Ryu Kyu Islands have several things in common. One, the were singled out by an oppressive central government and treated very poorly. Secondly, they were, and no doubt still are, small in stature but incredibly tough, skilled fighters. Thirdly, they had a "Dont tread on me" mindset, which is rare in the region.

This part makes me angry, but somewhere in the neighborhood of a million young Vietnamese men died in battle fighting for a communist Vietnam. These young men gave the ultimate sacrifice for............absolutely nothing. THEY DIED FOR NOTHING. Were a million young men duped? You bet they were. "Collective thinking" , "Agreement by consensus", or whatever you want to call it, if people in the region don't learn to think independently of one another, they will be led to their deaths again via the nationalist propaganda of some other horrible regime.

Perhaps I should have softened my statement about the regional minset somewhat, but this propensity to assimilate contributes to the problems that already exist in the region. Given SE Asia's history, any attempt at even PROPOSING Gun Control legislation should be met not with mere suspicion, but with outrage.

[mercedesrules]

(telomerase) Blueduck, are you going to run out and buy some crack if Drug Prohibition ends? For that matter, is there anything stopping you from doing it right now? No and no, of course. But there is something stopping you from buying a cancer cure: FDA restrictions that make drugs cost 800 million to get through development:

http://freedom.orlingrabbe.com/lfet...ta_proposal.htm

Would George Washington or Thomas Jefferson let Congress tell them what drugs they were "allowed" to have? What treatments that their terminally ill relatives could use? No, because they were men, not sheep.

Either you own your bloodstream or the politicians do. Which is it?

Good post, telo!

[NIGHTWATCH]

What nations are still free? Still have an armed citizenry? :rolleyes:

[Blueduck]

Been through the druggie/RKBA debate thing waaaay to many times. Their veins, my wallet. *edited per jimpeel ;) *

We live in society that if you sit on your behind doing nothing all day then "caring" government people will focibly remove money from MY pockets to pay for your sorry butt.

95% of cocain/meth/opiate addicts cannot succesfully make a living within our society. Even if given free drugs they will still rob and steal to obtain income for food/housing etc.. If an addict wants drugs but has no money it's not a problem. Dealer gives them 3 hits, they take one and sell two taking the money back to the main dealer. Folks under my supervision do it all the time so the arguement that legalizing drugs will "reduce" crime is totally lame to anybody actually dealing with these folks. BTW 95% of these people will screw over thier spouse, parents,even children but very rarely there dealer.

The idea that turning something from a felony to a "freedom of the people" reducing the problem is just as silly. Nope I'm not gonna start using crack if you legalize it, but certainly there are more than just a few folks (mostly young) "on the fence" who avoid experimentation because of fear of punishment.

*Maybe* if we create a perfectly libertarian society we could even debate drug legalization, but even then your gonna have to deal with the issue of what to do with all the little addled children users create ( I worked on this side of the fence too). Suppose we could just line up the crack babies to die on the sidewalk, or once again dig into my wallet to pay for somebody elses thrills :rolleyes:

Anyway once peoples minds are made up they tend to ignore the facts unless faced with them in person. I suggest all the RKBA/Legalize Drugs folks head to a NORML rally. Get right in the middle of the group, first look just look around, then start talking politics. You will soon find what a pile of societal excrement you've managed to align yourself with..

PS This IS my carring and compasionate version of the problem ;)

[telomerase]

>We live in society that if you sit on your behind doing nothing all day then "caring" government people will focibly remove money from MY pockets to pay for your sorry butt.

Can't argue with you there. But if you think giving this "caring" government more power over you will solve the problem, then I reserve the right to be skeptical.

[Blueduck]

Can't argue with you over the power issues either telomerase. But at least now heavy drug use is considered an unacceptable and illegal, so at least *most* of the laws only affect you if you choose to use. I see no reason to align the RKBA along with groups that seek to reverse this. I think if legalized the government would just start treating everyone with the same rules set up for the most pathetic strung out heroin addict you can imagine. More government interference in our lives not less.

People complain about safety locks on revolvers, can you imagine the gun they would design for a "Perfectly law abiding crack head, who has every right to protect his property just like you and me". Like I said most laws, rules, regulations and "liability issues" are determined by the lowest common denominator. Lowering the bar ain't the answer IMHO.

I see firearms ownership as a statement of personal responsibility, from my experience I see drug use as the complete and utter opposite. Sorry to sound gruff about, but I have no patience or sympathy for the losers who cower from life with drugs and leave the rest of us to pick up the pieces and pay the bill- because it's "thier right..".

[telomerase]

>Sorry to sound gruff about, but I have no patience or sympathy for the losers who cower from life with drugs

How about anti-cancer drugs? Anti-aging drugs? I'd like to do a bit of cowering, if you don't mind; and the FDA is standing directly in my way.

How do you feel about alcohol, tobacco, and Prozac users? What about TV? Cowboy Action Shooting? There are many activities that you could ban as "escapes from real life".

I've never used any recreational drugs (turns out I should have been using red wine for the resveratrol, but that's another discussion). This isn't any sort of personal issue. It's a principle: either you own your bloodstream or you don't. When you give up the right to own yourself, what's left? How can you justify any other personal rights?

The first gun control law in the US was passed using the excuse of "gangsters" who profited from the first Prohibition. Today's gun control is often justified using the second (extra-Constitutional) Prohibition.

And if you look back even farther in history, you'll see that the US had no Federal drug laws whatsoever until 1918. And since cocaine and opiates were legal, there were no Latin American or Asian terrorist groups profiting from the trade. There was no huge wave of drug-related crime, because the drugs were cheap. Many well-known people used these drugs and held down responsible jobs (of course, the drugs were better labeled and more regular in dosage).

I hope you don't think me hypocritical for not spending much time at NORML rallies :D But at least the NORML folks are trying to free themselves, not enslave you.

[jimpeel]

They're veins, my wallet.Took me about twenty seconds of repeated re-reading of that statement to figure out what you were saying.

Edit to "Their veins, my wallet."

[Blueduck]

Will do Jim. Though I wonder why it took you so long to figure out my error and what I meant. You don't by chance.. nah..:scrutiny:


;)


telomerase, who's enslaving who? The druggies are the ones enslaving us, with high tax rates to pay for their sorry butts, millions in treatment (none of which has proven to work in the least), and tons of damaged children which we will be paying the toll for generations.

Please don't even go start with the "What about cancer patients". Big evil goverment's making everybody die horrible deaths because of the war on drugs nonsense. When my mother had cancer they gave her all the morphine she needed, and no there are no are secret government cures for cancer tucked away in any black helicopters funded by Eli Lily. Got proof of it I'll listen.

I well explained the current drugs=crime deal and you come up with some theory of what happened in the 1800's, well back before the social safety net was enforced on us.

Do some research of your own, actually deal with folks on this stuff and see how "their" blood streams start affect "your" rights. But hey if you want to march with a bunch of sored up, shaking, burned out, irresponsible losers, who rob, steal and live off charity fine, but for Gods sakes take your NRA cap off. Totally different issues as have been explained and you will likely eventually discover on your own thorugh experience regardless of what I say.

With rights come responsibilities, you can't be responsible on crack.

[telomerase]

>Oh lord please don't even go start with the "What about cancer patients". Big evil goverment's making everybody die horrible deaths because of the war on drugs nonsense. When my mother had cancer they gave her all the morphine she needed, and no there are secret government cures for cancer tucked away in any black helicopters funded by Eli Lily. Got proof of it I'll listen.

No one said anything about government cures for cancer. In fact I work in a telomere research lab, and we will be the first to tell you that a lot of money was wasted in government labs in the War on Cancer. (Mouse telomeres don't cause replicative senescence, so they are a bad research animal in many ways.)

However, cancer cures could be developed. But because we treat biotech differently from the computer industry, things go much more slowly:

http://freedom.orlingrabbe.com/lfetimes/federal_data_proposal.htm

>I well explained the current drugs=crime deal and you come up with some theory of what happened in the 1800's, well back before the social safety net was enforced on us.

No, I did not come up with "some theory". I stated the historical fact that our ancestors had access to cocaine and opiates, and until 1918 this was not the huge problem that it is now... just as alcohol Prohibition caused problems analogous to the problems we have now with Drug Prohibition.

>Do some research of your own, actually deal with folks on this stuff and see how "their" blood streams start affect "your" rights. But hey if you want to march with a bunch of sored up, shaking, burned out, irresponsible losers, who rob, steal and live off charity fine,

Are you referring to alcoholics? TV addicts? Guys who spent all their rent money on CAS equipment? Not every irresponsible or criminal person uses controlled substances. And not every person who uses controlled substances is irresponsible.

>With rights come responsibilities, you can't be responsible on crack.

No one is advocating the use of crack (which is, as you know, a creation of Prohibition. Cocaine users when it was legal used more controllable delivery methods.. like Coca-cola, teas, etc.). I am advocating that people be held responsible for their actions, rather than for the firearms or chemicals that they own. As far as responsibility goes, you are only responsible for what you own. Do you own your own bloodstream, or not?

This is reminding me of the "oh those horrible immigrants" threads. Everyone wants to find poor, powerless scapegoats. But the poor and powerless aren't taking away your rights or taxing you to death. Our real opponents are those well-dressed, well-off, smiling people on TV. But they're not poor or powerless, so standing up to them takes a little more moxie.

(Although I admit that the thought of facing a CAS junkie in a back alley does fill me with apprehension...)

[telomerase]

>The druggies are the ones enslaving us, with high tax rates to pay for their sorry butts, millions in treatment (none of which has proven to work in the least), and tons of damaged children which we will be paying the toll for generations.

Once again: no, neither the druggies, nor the alcoholics, nor the tobacco users, nor the welfare mothers are enslaving us. We are being enslaved by those nice smiling folks in the campaign ads.

But getting them under control is harder than just sneering at the poor.

[telomerase]

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa121es.html

[telomerase]

... or pretended to:

http://cato.org/pubs/fpbriefs/fpb-071es.html

[Blueduck]

Drug war/RKBA has nothing in common, other than a few news blips about dealers and "AK's" by inane TV anchors. There's your real "evil smiling men in suits."

I just could not let a few pass...

And not every person who uses controlled substances is irresponsible.

So you would let someone babysit your child as long as they are a *responsible* crack/meth/heroin addict? "C'mon

I stated the historical fact that our ancestors had access to cocaine and opiates, and until 1918 this was not the huge problem that it is now..

Times change. Assuming a lower crime rate was due solely to a lack of drug laws(the strongest of which were not even available then), then jumping all the way to the assumption that getting rid of our drug laws would reduce crime to near the same level is well...poor reasoning. The genies out of the bottle. Gotta deal with whats going on today, not 100 years ago.


just as alcohol Prohibition caused problems analogous to the problems we have now with Drug Prohibition

Prohibition? get real. 90+% of people who drink have no real issues with it. 90+% of people who do crack are problems for society that we have to sweep up at our expense. Big difference between Bud and Heroin, whether you believe it or not.

But the poor and powerless aren't taking away your rights or taxing you to death. Our real opponents are those well-dressed, well-off, smiling people on TV. But they're not poor or powerless, so standing up to them takes a little more moxie.

If you recall thats what I said at the begining. You create me a perfect libertarian society where I don't have to pay for other peoples stupidity we'll *talk* legalization (still wanna know what to do with all those crack babies even then though). Till that comes to pass legalization in our current semi-socialist state would be an economic and personal rights nightmare for our country IMNSHO.

Doesn't really matter though, same tired arguements for legalization are trotted out and beaten around year after year after year. Common sense and experience win out over naive theories each and every time. Crack, Meth, Heroin are still illegal in all 50 states and that is not going to change. Better to spend your resources and typing skills fighting for something both beneficial to our rights and doable.

[telomerase]

>Doesn't really matter though, same tired arguements for legalization are trotted out

Just as the same "tired arguments" for gun rights are trotted out every year. But as long as people only care about THEIR pet freedom and are willing to vote against other people's (as is unfortunately just as true for the NORML people as it is for you), then no arguments for any freedom are likely to prevail.

You're obviously a good guy Blueduck. I certainly wish you the best. I just hope that when you're older you give up your "conspiracy theory" that there is a giant cabal of the rich and powerful to help the average person through Prohibition :scrutiny:

BTW, you never did answer the question: who owns your bloodstream? (And if it's not you, then who, exactly? Ashcroft?)

[jimpeel]

No, not loaded, just too literal. :scrutiny: They are ..., They ... are ... Theyare ... they are ... what?!?! :confused: They are veins, my wallet :confused: ... They ... Ohhhhhhh! I get it! THEIR veins, my wallet!:cool: :D

[Blueduck]

Thanks for saying I'm a good guy, I'd bet we would agree on a lot more than we would disagree on politically. Still I seriously doubt age is gonna change my mind on this one. I'm 34 and have spent the last 6 years working with drug addicted adults, and the previous 3 working with developmentally disabled children, nearly 80% of whom came from ehhhh... "freedom loving" parents ;)


BTW, you never did answer the question: who owns your bloodstream? (And if it's not you, then who, exactly? Ashcroft?)

OK I'll do one you do one then we'll call it an end, or just let this thread get back on track: You own your own bloodstream of course, just like you own your fingers, but your right to do whatever you want with your fingers ends at the begining of my pocket. At least in this country by the choice of the people of this great nation. If you choose to take your fingers (or veins) to Holland or anywhere else to abide by thier system instead of ours we don't stand in your way.

Your turn quick and simple, no BS no changing subject: Who pays for the crack babies these legal addicts pour out? Junkies can't/won't, suppose we could leave them on the sidewalk to die while the parents made more of them but that seems like punishing the innocent and letting the guilty run free. What's your plan???

[jimpeel]

Who pays for the crack babies these legal addicts pour out?Crack babies mostly come from those women who use their bodies to get the drug. Once the drug were legal, the "crack baby" numbers would diminish markedly.

[Blueduck]

Sorry Jim don't buy it (though your certainly a better proof reader than me ;) ) Even if the drug is free, it still leaves you incapable of working a regular job, which means you either live off me through gov handouts, or sell yourself to someone to fill your other economic needs, such as food,clothes, housing, entertainment etc..

Majority of female users I've dealt with got pregnant not through prostitution, but rather poor judgment while under the influence. Though I'm sure a lot come from that side as well.

[WonderNine]

Why aren't countries ever condemn for things like this? Instead we contemn Israel for throwing out a mass murderer. Makes me proud to be an American! Heil Bush! :rolleyes:

[telomerase]

>Your turn quick and simple, no BS no changing subject: Who pays for the crack babies these legal addicts pour out? Junkies can't/won't, suppose we could leave them on the sidewalk to die while the parents made more of them but that seems like punishing the innocent and letting the guilty run free. What's your plan???

You know my secret plan, Blueduck: end the welfare state. No taxes for "social programs" (i.e. subsidizing crime and irresponsibility). People may contribute to private charity if they want to (which they do; Americans gave around $150 billion to nonprofits last year, and could give hundreds of billions more if the tax burden was lifted). So my answer is the same as for most things: whoever wants to, not whoever is forced to at gunpoint.

I think we both agree that if you pay a parasitic class to reproduce at their maximum rate while working people can only afford two children each, the math isn't going to work out.

As far as addicts go: I've had the unpleasant experience of meeting a lot of politicians and their subsidized "businessman" hangers-on. A lot of these guys are cocaine users; that doesn't stop them from getting a lot richer than you and I, or looking down on us working folks as pathetic low-lifes. Drugs are just chemicals, not magic; the truth is that they're not really that important. Edison was a cocaine user all through his most productive period, ditto a lot of other famous people. Conversely, plenty of people are low-paid, overworked losers with no drugs involved (like me, for instance).

>I seriously doubt age is gonna change my mind on this one.

Well, we'll see. I'll bet you a silver dime to a paper dollar that within the next ten years you'll read a few history books and lose your faith in the good will of those who claim to be jailing people for their own good. Best of luck to you.

[c_yeager]

I meet a LOT of drug users on a daily basis. I also meet a lot of just plain born users. The fact is that most of the drug users i meet fit into the latter category as well. What im trying to say is that for the most part the drug users i have met would be sucking on welfare REGARDLESS of their drug habit.