Best way to restore the 2nd amendment

[BerettaCougar]

Mr Norris, I know what Mthalo is trying to say here.

Since the growing/selling/possessing of certain drugs is illegal, and taboo it drives public interest, and demand grows larger and larger with everynew law that is passed.

It correlates in two ways, 1 the suppliers that use guns to protect themselves from other dealers, users, police, and to generally terrorize and for gang related crimes.

2 the buyers are sometimes addicted, and will do anything...sometimes kill for a hit.

The source of the problem is prohibition.

 

[Al Norris]

Aw, come on BC! You Know That And I Know That... But I wanted mthalo to say it!

... Besides, it's not kosher to use VPC coined terms on a gun board.

 

[Vermont Carry]

Thanx for the re open.

Secondly, the government will still come after those who violate the gun laws, regardless of the drug laws being in effect or not. Conflating apples and oranges is not a valid argument.

They're not apples and oranges. Government aggression in violation of property rights is government aggression in violation of property rights REGARDLESS of the property involved. They're different LOOKING apples from the SAME tree of illegal (unconstitutional) government aggression.

Now, initially maybe government will still go after those who violate gun laws (if we were to RElegalize plants), but this is about changing the culture from one where government arbitrarily bans POSSESSION of things then invades our homes, to a culture where government is in it's proper constitutional box and DOESN'T do that.

Proof of what I'm saying is the sheer irrationality with which government holds ON to the total power over what plant we possess. It's identical to the fanaticism with which it holds on to the power to decide what GUNS we may possess. Government's attitude towards us is the same whether it's "evil" guns or "evil" plants. Calling it "apples and oranges" shows that you don't seem to understand that. Government needs to be beaten back on many fronts plain and simple. I sincerely believe that beating it BACK on the plant front will make it a little easier to beat it back on the gun front. Most Americans currently play a game of only looking at their "pet" front in this war. They figure that if it doesn't affect THEM, then they'll turn government loose to abuse their fellow citizens. The left has that attitude towards you and your guns, and the "right" has that attitude towards a person who chooses to smoke something BESIDES South Carolina tobacco.

Government's tactics to attack us, and the ENERGY with which it does it, are QUITE similar whether it's guns or EDIT: (certain) drugs.

 

[44 AMP]

Let's see if I get this right...

Your argument is that by removing the legal penalties for posession of (certain) drugs, that would remove the reason for "no-knock" type entries, and we would all benefit.

A logical idea, and one that could possibly work, if people weren't involved. Unfortunately, people are involved, so I see little hope of your idea working the way you envision. History shows us this.

After the repeal of Prohibition, Govt agents didn't go away, they just shifted focus. That would happen today. Repeal of Prohibition did end the violence associated with the illegal alcohol trade, and would likely do the same to the illegal drug trade today. However, Since the Feds needed something to do after making alcohol legal, they turned to guns. I would expect something similar today.

What do you think all the agents, officers, attorneys, and prosecutors who do nothing but drug cases are going to do if you can decriminalize (certain) drugs? I fear that it would have just the opposite effect than the one you theorize. Instead of getting them to lighten up and leave us alone on the gun issue, I think that if they were to "give" us the drug thing, they would demand our guns. ALL OF THEM, or as many as they could get.

This is the pattern being used in Europe. Many European nations have relaxed (compared to the US) drug laws, and very, very restrictive gun laws. As there are people who are actively working to create a "global society", and it is not the US model that they are using, I think they would be glad to trade the "War on (some) Drugs" for the "War on gun violence" (or whatever catch phrase they come up with).

After all, (according to them) all the masses need are bread and circuses, and if they can get us to give up our guns in return, they will be very happy for the opportunity.

Govt types have a long history of being very reluctant to give up any kind of power, or organization, and if we get them to turn loose of one area of authority, it is quite likely they will expand their authority into another area to compensate.

FYI, whoever is watching the History Channel isn't getting it quite right. Drug laws have been patterned after gun laws, not the other way around. One show (about Marijuana) made a particular point of explaining how at one time, the laws were modelled after the laws covering machineguns (tax stamp, etc.)

I wish your idea would work, but I just don't see it happening. And I feel that the potential for unintended consequences is just too great.

 

[Al Norris]

FYI, whoever is watching the History Channel isn't getting it quite right. Drug laws have been patterned after gun laws, not the other way around. One show (about Marijuana) made a particular point of explaining how at one time, the laws were modeled after the laws covering machineguns (tax stamp, etc.)

Yup. All those "revenuer" agents turned their attention from alcohol to guns, after prohibition was repealed (21st amendment - 12/5/33) and the feds enacted the NFA (6/26/34).

And that is precisely why I stated that equating guns with drugs was comparing apples to oranges.

There is another area of opposition to the legalization of drugs, especially marijuana, that I seldom see in these discussions. Do you really think the feds will legalize weed, when it would doom the cotton industry? Hemp fiber can be substituted for anything and everything that is currently made with cotton. It is stronger (more durable), it can be made softer, it holds colors (dyes) better. It is resistant to molds and fungus.

Hemp would even supplant much of, if not all of, the paper industry.

The oil companies would start screaming, as well. Hemp oil can replace many of the lubricants now derived from fossil fuels. Easy and cheap Bio diesel can be made from hemp oil.

The potential for legal cultivation of marijuana to disrupt the economy (as it currently stands) would be enormous. The feds will not allow that to happen.

Most peoples thinking on the decriminalization of "weed" is way too narrow.

 

[Silver Bullet]

It's "pro gun" folks like you who enable the government aggression aginst gun owners because you encourage government aggression against others WHILE AT THE SAME TIME wanting government to leave YOU alone.

What a Laff Riot. Us “pro gun” folks aren’t encouraging aggression against the dopers. We don’t care about you; you’re irrelevant.

In another thread (which you went to pains to get locked up after I kept pressing you to explain what you were doing for RKBA) you were trying to disparage the NRA.

Now we see why: you want us to spend our NRA dues on NORML.

Ain’t gonna happen, bud.

Keep the comedy coming, though !

 

[mthalo]

mthalo, what is "gun violence?"

A term used to describe violent acts committed with guns. Don't worry, I swear I'm not an undercover Brady mole, I have a semi-automatic assault revolver to prove it

Why would you use a term coined by the VPC and Brady Bunch?

How should I have phrased it, give me a better way and I promise I won't use gun violence again?
I think that the fact that you would bring these guys up reinforces the argument that there's a relationship between the second amendment and drug prohibition.

Both groups are fond of throwing out the statistic that XXXXX children are killed with guns each year.
It's a powerful tool, since we're all supposed to love children.
We all know that many of these "children" are gang members involved in drug related turf wars. Decriminalizing drugs might take much of the power out of their bogus argument that "it's the kids that suffer".