Okay, so we know gun control won't work . . .

[BHPshooter]

You want an example? Here's a simple one. A woman is addicted and simply doesn't have any money for drugs. So she starts turning tricks for a pimp in exchange for drugs. That situation already exists. If you think it's going to disappear with legalized drugs then I dare say that you are taking an ignorant view.

And thus we see another victimless "crime." Prostitution is illegal in 49 states, yet there are plenty of them in each of those states. If there wasn't a demand, there wouldn't be a supply. If somebody wants to have sex with someone else, even for money, who is that hurting?

It's all about CHOICES. I don't use drugs, and I don't sleep around, but who am I to tell others that they can't do these things? We already know that people are going to do what they want to. Why not just let them make their own mistakes and live their own lives?

Wes

 

[Mute]

Most of us here in the USA agree that gun control is a bandaid on a sucking chest wound.

No. Gun control is a bandaid on your pinky toe, when you have a sucking chest wound. It doesn't address the problem, but somehow we're suppose to think that something good is being done for us.

 

[Graystar]

There will just simply never be a shortage of people who think they must control what other people do with their own bodies.

Tallpine, you can do whatever the hell you want with your body. I don't care one bit if you want to drug yourself up. That's your business.

BUT WHEN YOUR PERSONAL LIFE SPILLS INTO THE STREET AND INTO MY HOUSE, BECAUSE YOU NEED MONEY TO SUPPORT YOUR HABIT...NOW YOU HAVE CROSSED THE LINE AND YOU ARE A PROBLEM THAT NEEDS TO BE DEALT WITH!!

The drugs laws are not meant to protect the drug addicts from themselves. The drugs laws are meant to protect the people FROM drug addicts!!

Can't you see that???

 

[Graystar]

And thus we see another victimless "crime."

So a woman forced into slavery is a victimless crime?

 

[TallPine]

No. Gun control is a bandaid on your pinky toe, when you have a sucking chest wound. It doesn't address the problem, but somehow we're suppose to think that something good is being done for us.

Okay, I wanna play this game too ....

Gun control is amputating your arm when you have a sucking chest wound. It doesn't address the problem, and it causes irreparable harm in addition.

 

[TallPine]

Can't you see that???

I can see that very similar arguments were used by the WCTU and others in the years leading up to alcohol prohibition.

And those arguments are equally valid. Except we already proved that it doesn't work.

People's drinking spills over into the street every time a drunk gets behind the wheel of a car.


But it's okay ... you don't need to yell. I used to think exactly like you do.

 

[ravinraven]

How'd we get here?

We were talking about how disarming the public will cause crime to disappear. Then we got onto legalizing drugs to make crime in that area disappear. Which idea is right?

To use prohibition as an example, it seems that organized crime and the church were on the same side in the prohibition days. The church wanted to protect their flocks by getting rid of alky and the mob wanted to protect their profits by the "get rid of alky" amendment.

Then there is the other aspect. Up where I live, prisons are the county industry. If drug laws disappear, lots of juicy jobs disappear. We'll have to reduce the requirements to get into prison to keep the enrollment up. Just like colleges.

Back to guns and a comment way back about what can we do about violent [read gun-related] crime? No matter how many crimes are committed with guns, I have never felt the urge to take my gun out and commit a crime with it. So how is taking my gun going to eliminate crime. There were years and years of time before I owned a gun. Gun crime existed so I know that my buying a gun did not cause all this gun crime.

The simple fact is that the gun grabbers are depending on a very old and failed principle. It is so old that it is related in the New Testament. The principle is called The King Herrod Tactic. "Kill all male children under two [?] years of age and we will surely kill the Christ Child." Fortunately that tactic didn't work 2000 years ago. "Remove all the guns from wherever they can be found [in the homes of honest, peaceful people] and gun crime will come to an end." Why should King Herrod's tactic suddenly start working now?

The fact is that the 2A was installed by the founders as a not so subtle reminder to governing people where their power comes from and that abuse of that power will bring the people out armed. The 2A is not about target and deer shooting and home protection. It is about the right and RESPONSIBILITY we have to keep this gov't of, by and for the people to being just that.

ravin[&rantin]raven

 

[Graystar]

I can see that very similar arguments were used by the WCTU and others in the years leading up to alcohol prohibition.

You can't make a blanket statement that applies to anything. What doesn't work in one case can work in another. The execution of Prohibition was plagued by several factors...but the bottom line was the the people of this country didn't see alcohol as a major problem. The vast majority of the people can have a glass of wine with dinner, or a beer after work, and they can handle it. It doesn't become the focus of their lives.

The same is not true of illegal drugs. The people *do* see drugs as a major problem. Illegal drugs *do* become the focus of the lives of the people that use them. There simply is no comparing drugs and alcohol.

 

[Mark Tyson]

The vast majority of the people can have a glass of wine with dinner, or a beer after work, and they can handle it. It doesn't become the focus of their lives.

Believe it or not, a lot of drug users lead productive lives. You'd be surprised how many middle class drug users there are who function just fine.

There simply is no comparing drugs and alcohol.

You're right - alcohol is probably one of the most if not the most destructive drugs available in the US. Considering the damage it does, all illegal drugs pale in comparison.

Drugs are a health problem. They should not be treated as a criminal justice problem.
Legalization doesn't necessarily mean you'd be able to buy crystal meth over the counter at Rite Aid. You wouldn't want certain people using drugs - nuclear power plant operators, for example. There's lots of drug legalization models that we could consider implementing - look to Europe for example.

 

[Nightfall]

The vast majority of the people can have a glass of wine with dinner, or a beer after work, and they can handle it.

I'm sure most people could smoke a joint and not go crazy with addiction too.

The same is not true of illegal drugs. The people *do* see drugs as a major problem.

The problem is that the sheep's idea of what is a problem in this nation is often defined by slanted sources of information such as the gov't and mass media. Gun control is an instance. Many people see guns as a problem, but for the extreme majority of them, this is only because of the very skewed perspective on firearms that the media, especially the news sources, often present. Same for drugs, IMO.

Illegal drugs *do* become the focus of the lives of the people that use them. There simply is no comparing drugs and alcohol.

Let me take a wild guess here and say there are far, far more alcoholics in this nation than people addicted to pot.

 

[dustind]

For illegal drugs it's from overdoses or other short term affects.
How would people overdose if the dosage was written on the bottle? Also a lot of harm from drugs would be gone if they were made in factories and not basements.

We have history...evidence that demonstates auto licensing and regulations were needed and have made the roads much much safer.
How many dangerous drivers do not drive do to our licensing and regulations? How did you learn to drive? From the government, or practice?

I dirt bike, ATV, rock crawl, snowmobile, etc etc. None of those things are licensed or regulated yet millions do it every year and it is incredibly safe despite difficult terrain and spirited driving.

It does not matter if you legalize drugs. There will STILL be a black market for drugs. Just like there's a market for tax free cigs. And it doesn't matter how cheap the drugs are...if people are losing their jobs because they are getting hooked on drugs, and they have no money, they will turn to crime...they must! It's the only way!
There can not be a black market for somethat that is legal, if there is then it is not legal enough. Black market ciggerets exist because they are cheaper than highly taxed ones, end the tax and you immediatly end the black market. Most users will not loose their job over drugs. Very few people loose them now, I doubt it would change. Also crack and a few of the other really nasty/makeshift ones would be gone as soon as opium prices dropped.

So a woman forced into slavery is a victimless crime?
Most people sell themselves of their of their own free will. States that have decriminalized it a bit have seen a reduction in illegal prostitution. Legal selling establishments are safe and clean. The only argument against legalizing it is a moral one. Who would pay for someone on the street when you can walk into a massage parlor for the same price in a safe and friendly atmosphere?

My turn:
Can anyone name a single successful prohibition, ever?

To answer the thread's question. The truth and our best argument is that a gun is just a tool. You should not blame tools for anything.

You can not ban something that can be made in a garage for a fraction of the cost and risk of drug labs. Guns save many times more lives than they take. (you know what I mean)

 

[mantispid]

We have history...evidence that demonstates auto licensing and regulations were needed and have made the roads much much safer.

A few interesting points should be made...

1. You don't need a license to own or use a car. You can tool around your own property NASCAR style all you want, without a license!

2. You don't need to register your car if you don't use it on government roads. Buy all the cars you want, and they can all be free of license plates as long as they stay on your land.


Interesting story on the side:

*3. A friend of mine in Texas doesn't have a driver's license OR plates.. and he uses the government roads there. Cops have pulled him over numerous times, and he's even had to go to court numerous times, but every time the judge lets him go free without a fine or anything. The cops in his area have pretty much given up pulling him over. (I don't know if this is true, it may not be, but my friend says that at least in the state of Texas, you don't need a driver's license or registration to use government roads.. you only need it if you are using your vehicle in a commerce function.. i.e. livery or cargo transport. I can't see why he's been let free so many times in various juristictions in Texas if what he claims is untrue, unless the Texas court system is just too lazy or swamped to deal with him).

 

[BHPshooter]

So a woman forced into slavery is a victimless crime?

She ended up that way of her own choices. She chose to take the drugs, and she chose to take up a less-than-honorable career to support her habit.

Whenever you take away someones choices, the ability to make a mistake, you have neutered freedom. That's what America is about: Freedom. Has everyone forgotten that?

Wes

 

[Smurfslayer]

lots of stuff...

Legalize or decriminalize drugs: On it's surface, it sounds like a pretty common sensical ( or not depending on your point of view ) thing to do.

I equate drug use to alcohol use on a .9 to 1.0 scale. I think some drugs are far more incapacitating, and thus their effects are more serious. decriminalize possession & use ? I could live with that. Decriminalize public use - no. Not just no, HELL no. I don't like the thought of people out in public in an incapacitated state be it by alcohol or some other chemical influence. Drunk driving is irresponsible, and rightly is a crime in and of itself, as should be "high" driving. So long as possession & use doesn't affect my life, more power to you... That having been said this isn't an apples to apples comparison to firearms possession, ownership & use.
1st, drugs (alcohol included) impair judgment & mental capacity, carrying a gun does not.
2nd, 2AUSC clearly affirms RKBA, nothing in USC can be construed even remotely to protect, affirm or permit (ab)use of chemical substances. Therefore, they must be evaluated on different scales when considered under law. Rights, or limited curtailments should be evaluated with "strict scrutiny" in that it must be considered a compelling and significant state or public interest for the infringement to pass legal muster, whereas substance use or abuse need not be evaluated with such a high standard of regulatory restriction.

IMHO, we should not equate RKBA with substance legalization, it's too divisive.

I think a good way to convince the all knowing socialists is to use quotes from the founding fathers - then follow up with, "so, Mr. Nosanchuk, do you consider yourself more intelligent than Madison ?" The people who wrote the Constitution, BOR, and 'approved' them were far more educated than the finest legal minds of today. Lazy was unheard of in their time because there were no computers, cars, or many other tools of sophistication like today. As a society, we've come to depend on technology to make life simpler so we CAN be lazy. And it's worked. We don't do what needs to be done, we HIRE someone to do it. That attitude permeates our life. By and large, we don't hunt to sustain ourselves, we go to the store. We don't help pave roads, we let the government do it through our taxes. We don't fight fires, we pay to have pros (and volunteers). We don't (majority) serve in the Armed Forces, we rely on volunteers. We don't enforce laws, we pay professional police to do it. As with all contracts, you must exercise due diligence in maintaining the 'contract' is fulfilled to your satisfaction or it will be abused. We've abdicated oversight of our former responsibilities so much, that we become less and less free every day. As a demographic, WE need to become more involved, and not be so willing to sit back and let things happen. The founders were people of action. They did a lot of talking, and when the time for talking was over, they DID something about it. Gun grabbers are spineless talkers. Stand up to them and don't let them further their lies. Gun grabbers want YOU to be disarmed so they'll be able to feel superior to you as well as others, but that pesky "I'll take care of myself"attitude of people who carry and some who don't, but own guns makes that more difficult for the grabbers.
Our collective abdication of responsibilities has allowed Freedom hating, gun grabbing socialists with a superirority complext to infiltrate all aspects of government and allowed it to further invade and infringe our daily lives. The Constitution was meant to define the boundaries of what the People decided that the government(s) could and could not do, but the "neo-coms"(neo-communists) have twisted every interpretation in their favor while we collectively allowed it without any significant reaction. They've been conditioned for decades to take more and more from us.
Every jurisdiction that has registered firearms I know of has followed up with a 'confiscation' or some similar repressive scheme. When a law like this is passed, there should be action, not a bunch of windbags proclaiming what a bad thing that was.