Gun owner hypocrisy that needs to stop

[Rebar]

The libertarian party doesn't win elections, because of rank incompetence.

Rather then starting at the local/state level, getting state reps and senators elected ie building a base, they decided that going right for president was the way to go. And for 30 years, they've been running stupid wasteful campaigns to get some no-name nobody with no chance for president.

Meanwhile, in that 30 years they've only got a few state reps elected, and not one single state senator. 30 years, down the drain.

Have they learned their lesson? Nope. And at this point they never will, anyone with a lick of sense has left the party years ago, only the real crazies are left. They had to reduce membership dues to zero to keep the plummiting membership numbers from showing.

You can have the best ideas in the world, but if you cannot run competent candidates with competent campaigns for winnable seats, it doesn't matter. Only winners get to implement policy. For what they spend on a doomed presidential run, they could win a dozen state seats, multiply that over the years, and you'd have a real party with real power. Instead of the joke it has become. A vote for these losers is a waste, or rather, your vote is valuable, it's the liberatarian party that wastes it.

 

[Scope]

First, your initial comparison is absurd. Just because some gun owners are against drug use does not mean that they support illegal search and seizure and other bullish activity from the government. To imply otherwise is way out of line. Second, to equate the right to own a gun with the ability to use and own drugs is ridiculous. One is explicitly stated by the Constitution and the other is not. Amendment 9 is not a catch-all amendment that insures individuals the right to do or own whatever they want that the constitution has not already listed. The government does have the authority to regulate what is not socially acceptable behavior like sex in public, murder, and drug use. Amendment 9 is not an excuse for anarchy.

I don't believe it is a valid comparison to put the freedom of guns and drugs in the same arena. One is a tool and the other is a product that is a mind altering substance.

model25 +1

 

[Ben Swenson]

Just because some gun owners are against drug use does not mean that they support illegal search and seizure and other bullish activity from the government.

I don't see how one could support the government's current war on some drugs without supporting their methods.

One can be opposed to something without begging the government to get involved. That is the position I take. I abhor drug use, but I do not think it is my place to hire thugs to bust people who want to smoke pot, snort cocaine, smoke cigarettes, shoot herion or drink alcohol. I do not believe that someone who advocates freedom is being hypocritical by being against drug abuse, speaking out against drug abuse and endeavoring to educate others about the dangers of using and abusing drugs of any sort.

Amendment 9 is not a catch-all amendment that insures individuals the right to do or own whatever they want that the constitution has not already listed.

So what does Amendment 9 protect? Whatever is socially acceptable? Don't need an amendment to protect that, do we?

The government does have the authority to regulate what is not socially acceptable behavior like sex in public, murder, and drug use.

So the limitation in your mind to tolerable government intrusion is whatever is socially acceptable? Thus, anything that is socially unacceptable should be subject to government meddling - except for what is explicitly excluded in the Constitution?

 

[Redworm]

the funny part about the "socially acceptable" bit is that before the 1930s it was very socially acceptable. it's been socially acceptable for thousands of years, yet a racist was able to convince the white folk that black people and mexicans turned into monsters because of this drug

Laws are not always just, hence the need to change them. The hypocrisy is that the very people that demand freedom often want to restrict the freedoms of others. It still boggles my mind how so many gun rights advocates are only care about that particular right because it's been written down but then want to restrict the rights of others to be live their lives as they choose.

 

[HKGuns]

That post just about guarantees I'll never own a "masterpiece"! Sorry you are so confused about things......better roll up another spliff and relax.

 

[Scope]

I abhor drug use, but I do not think it is my place to hire thugs to bust people who want to smoke pot, snort cocaine, smoke cigarettes, shoot herion or drink alcohol.

The moral equivalencies you are drawing are absurd. Drinking alcohol is not the same as shooting heroine. Soldiers are not thugs, and pursuing and prosecuting corruption in society is a major role of the government. I doubt the framers would have trouble differentiating between someone who wants a firearm to protect their belongings and family and someone who wants to own drugs so they can get wasted and encourage others to follow.

So what does Amendment 9 protect?

Well maybe you should put it into the context of what the framers believed was right and wrong. Common sense would dictate that is was put in place to enforce the freedoms they enjoyed, not to create new ones that didn't exist.

 

[Musketeer]

Drug sales are "corruption in society" because we have made it illegal. If it were not illegal it would not be "cooruption" and the law enforcement officers could be put to better use elsewhere.

Drugs were available when the Constitution was written. Laudnum (sp?) was in common use for some time. It was even provided by prescription and available from the pharmacy. We chose to create laws outlawing the behaviour and, like laws that outlawed alcohol, we have paid the price in blood and money for trying to enforce a law not desired by a large segment of society. I would argue that if all the money spent on arresting and prosecuting drug offenders was spent on education and drug avoidance PR there would be a much smaller drug problem than we currently have.

 

[SIGSHR]

I think that many of our society's problems are due to drug and alcohol use
and more rigorous enforcement of anti-drug laws is needed. Our overly expensive public schools are a waste of money because so many students and teachers are dopeheads who try to spend their school days stoned, hence little if any learning takes place. The idea that if drugs were legalized
the price would drop so much as to make illegal production unprofitable is absurd, as is the idea that all the users would somehow morph into responsiblecitizens who will work to pay for their habits instead of relying on crime orwelfare is doubleplus absurd, as George Orwell might say. There is no ethos of responsible behavior associated with drug use, and don't expect one to develop. Much of the military's poor performance in Vietnam was due to drug use, and those who have served in the military in the last few years have told me that Uncle Sam has zero tolerance for drug users. I like that story I read back in 1981 or so about an incident on one of the Navy's carriers. In the Spring of 1981 there was a crash on one of the carriers, 14 sailors fighting the blaze died, it was subsequently revealed that 10 of the 14 had been smoking dope. The Navy cracked down hard, instituting among others things mass punishments. On one of the carriers a sailor was caught with controlled substances, his whole section was punished. Two of the other sailors grabbed him and threw him overboard. Cynic that I am,I repeat what I have read about how the way to deal with the drug problem is to intercept shipments of illegal drugs, lace them with something nice and lethal then put them back on the streets.
I also note that I've never met anyone who had an alcoholic or drug user in the family who found it an enjoyable exeperience.

 

[Ben Swenson]

The moral equivalencies you are drawing are absurd. Drinking alcohol is not the same as shooting heroine.

Imbibing alcohol is taking a drug. An addictive drug with many adverse effects.
I was not drawing an equivalence

Soldiers are not thugs

And neither are - for the most part - police.
"Thugs" just struck me as a nice word for people hired to manage other's personal lives through threat of deadly force.

and pursuing and prosecuting corruption in society is a major role of the government.

As well, I suppose, defining what "corruption" is?

I doubt the framers would have trouble differentiating between someone who wants a firearm to protect their belongings and family and someone who wants to own drugs so they can get wasted and encourage others to follow.

I agree. I think just about anyone could tell the two apart. Doesn't mean a thing, though.

Can you honestly tell me that you think if the framers looked at what has been and is done in the name of the "War on Drugs" they would be for it?

 

[Scope]

I was not drawing an equivalence

Just about every statement you make is based on drawing a moral equivalency between something that most find detestable and something else that most find desirable. You've said that punishing crime is the same as having a tyrannical government that imposes its will on the people. You've said that those who enforce the rule of law are no better than those who break the law by giving them the same name. And you've said that the difference between one persons desire to protect themselves and anothers desire to indulge in their excesses is meaningless and irrelevant.

Unless one can truly convince themselves that there is no difference between wrong and right, then none of your statements are true. The difference is exactly where the subtitlies of creating a functional law for society lie. I do not believe that I am being a hypocrit by endorsing the right to arms as laid out by the 2nd amendment and denying the "right" for people to use mind altering drugs under a vague amendment taken out of context.

Can you honestly tell me that you think if the framers looked at what has been and is done in the name of the "War on Drugs" they would be for it?

Since I think your claims are exaggerated or outright fraudulent, yes.

As well, I suppose, defining what "corruption" is?

That will take this discussion firmly into the scope of morality. I would be more than happy to discuss the Moseic Covenant and the teachings of the prophets with you. Or can we just assume we won't see eye to eye on this?

Drug sales are "corruption in society" because we have made it illegal. (Musketeer)

I disagree. The corruption of society I was speaking of is people indulging in their excesses without taking the slightest care in how it effects those around them. That's not limited to illegal drug use, but includes it.

 

[johnbt]

"Drinking alcohol is not the same as shooting heroine."

Correct, alcohol is much worse for you. Chronic use of pharmaceutical grade heroin won't kill you (assuming you use clean needles, etc.); chronic alcohol use will rot your body and kill you. You can look it up. I did more than 30 years ago and I got an A+ for the paper.

John

 

[Ben Swenson]

Just about every statement you make is based on drawing a moral equivalency between something that most find detestable and something else that most find desirable.

You're right. When I was typing that I didn't finish that sentence when I was typing that post.
What I was going to say was:
I wasn't drawing an equivalence between the effects of heroin and alcohol, just an equivalence between their status as recreational drugs.

Do most people really find alcohol intoxication a desirable thing?

You've said that punishing crime is the same as having a tyrannical government that imposes its will on the people.

That depends entirely on the crime, doesn't it? Or are you a "law and order at any cost" type?

You've said that those who enforce the rule of law are no better than those who break the law by giving them the same name.

Enforcing an unjust law is not a good thing.

And you've said that the difference between one persons desire to protect themselves and anothers desire to indulge in their excesses is meaningless and irrelevant.

That's crap. You do not protect yourself by imprisoning people who intoxicate themselves with something you don't like. That's not protecting yourself, that's working to control others Additionally, you defend people's right to indulge in the excesses you are comfortable with at the cost of the harm those excesses cause.

Unless one can truly convince themselves that there is no difference between wrong and right, then none of your statements are true.

Not so. I have a very clear view of right and wrong, but I'm not sure you have the same consistency that I do. You view some recreational drugs as good, and condemn others with no objective standard.

My opinion of recreational drugs is simple and consistent. I am against them and will not personally partake. However, that is a personal choice and must be a personal choice if one believes that a person can and should own themselves and be responsible for their own body. I tend to doubt you believe this.

The difference is exactly where the subtitlies of creating a functional law for society lie. I do not believe that I am being a hypocrit by endorsing the right to arms as laid out by the 2nd amendment and denying the "right" for people to use mind altering drugs under a vague amendment taken out of context.

So work to ban alcohol, tobacco and caffeine right along with the rest of the mind-altering drugs. Or you are a hypocrite, but not because of your views on guns.

Since I think your claims are exaggerated or outright fraudulent, yes.

What claims?

That will take this discussion firmly into the scope of morality. I would be more than happy to discuss the Moseic Covenant and the teachings of the prophets with you. Or can we just assume we won't see eye to eye on this?

We do not live in a theocracy. As such, while the Bible may be very useful in defining right and wrong, it is not correct to pass laws based on certain people's interpretation of it.

I disagree. The corruption of society I was speaking of is people indulging in their excesses without taking the slightest care in how it effects those around them. That's not limited to illegal drug use, but includes it.

Is that not true of abuse of legal drugs as well?

 

[Crosshair]

johnbt

"Drinking alcohol is not the same as shooting heroine."

Correct, alcohol is much worse for you.

I have heard that, you wouldn't happen to have that paper in a digital format (no punch cards please. ) that you could send me. Sounds like an interesting read.

 

[liliysdad]

I think that a lot of peple who are against the WOD fail to see is that the war is widely popular. The average person in the United States backs the efforts to stamp illegal narcotics trade out. Regardless of my personal feelings, I have a job to do, and that is protect the poulace. If the poulace wants the War on Drugs, thats what I will do.

Personally, I see no problem with legalizing Weed. Tax it, regulate it, and treat it like alcohol. The rest of the drugs I do not feel the same about.

 

[Redworm]

Slavery was also quite popular, as was the practice of only allowing men to vote. Popular doesn't mean right.

 

[Crosshair]

Redworm

Slavery was also quite popular, as was the practice of only allowing men to vote. Popular doesn't mean right.

+1

Not to mention Germanys very sucessfull WOJ (War on Jews). Killing Jews is still very popular in the Middle East. Gang rape is OK in some parts of the world as a form of punishment against a woman. What about cutting off the hands of a thief.

What about the fact that recycling is bad for the enviornment. (Hard to believe, but true.) Yet people still blindly believe in recycling. (Aluminum is the only thing that is enviornmentaly friendly to recycle.) Even I dismissed this revelation at first until I looked at the facts.

 

[Scope]

I wasn't drawing an equivalence between the effects of heroin and alcohol, just an equivalence between their status as recreational drugs.

Which is bad reasoning. Not everyone who drinks does so to get drunk, but everyone who shoots heroine does so to get high. The amount of alcohol needed to receive the effects you talk of is also much greater than the amount of heroine needed. They are not equivalent, and neither should the laws regulating their use be.

That depends entirely on the crime, doesn't it?

No, it does not. A good government will let the punishment fit the crime. That does not make them tyrants.

Enforcing an unjust law is not a good thing.

The war on drugs is.

"And you've said that the difference between one persons desire to protect themselves and anothers desire to indulge in their excesses is meaningless and irrelevant."

That's crap.

Let me remind you of your own words in regards to the difference between the two: "I agree. I think just about anyone could tell the two apart. Doesn't mean a thing, though." So tell me, why is it no better for someone to desire to protect themselves than to desire to get wasted on some drug?

You do not protect yourself by imprisoning people who intoxicate themselves with something you don't like.

If that something takes away their ability to exhibit self control and contemplate proper choices, and probably makes them dangerous to people around them, then yes you do.

So work to ban alcohol, tobacco and caffeine right along with the rest of the mind-altering drugs. Or you are a hypocrite, but not because of your views on guns.

No, I am not a hypocrite. I can see that the effects of caffiene are not the same as those of heroine or weed. This isn't a logical problem with only two extremes. But those drugs that have been banned have been banned with good reason, IMO.

I also have moderate views on firearms, by the way. I have not advocated unrestricted access to weaponry, but have stated that some weapons do not belong in civilian hands, including fully automatic weapons. If you don't believe me, ask XB. Excess in just about any area can be dangerous to society. That's why there are laws on what weapons people can buy, what people can do with their money (anti-trust, loansharking, etc), and what drugs they can have and use.

Not so. I have a very clear view of right and wrong, but I'm not sure you have the same consistency that I do.

Your "consistency" is founded on declaring nothing is wrong and everything is equal. And you haven't presented a clear view of right and wrong at all. So far other than little self endorsements you have failed to exhibit any interest in differentiating between the two.

You view some recreational drugs as good, and condemn others with no objective standard.

Loss of self control isn't a standard? Being in a correct state of mind versus an altered state of mind isn't a standard? It's too bad no one's made a tape measure for that. Not having a number handy for reference does not mean any attempt at standards should be removed. Even if cases have to be evaluated on a case by case basis it is better than the lack of standards you propose.

What claims?

Wrong guy. My mistake.

We do not live in a theocracy. As such, while the Bible may be very useful in defining right and wrong, it is not correct to pass laws based on certain people's interpretation of it.

This isn't a theocracy, but I don't set aside my beliefs when I go to vote. Both the Bible and the Constitution can be viewed as containing covenants that I am obliged to honor insofar as they don't directly contradict. In this case I don't see as they do. The "separation of church and state" does not inhibit me from voting my conscience, nor does the 9th amendment spell out rights for would-be junkies IMO.

Is that not true of abuse of legal drugs as well?

Yes. I support more restrictive laws on how certain drugs are used, especially alcohol. Just because I don't support prohibition does not mean I think anything goes. There is a middle ground.

 

[Redworm]

If that something takes away their ability to exhibit self control and contemplate proper choices, and probably makes them dangerous to people around them, then yes you do.

Then you must advocate the prohibition of alcohol as well because it's no less intoxicating than marijuana. It's also a much larger health risk as many people have died from alcohol poisoning over the years as well as alcohol related crimes but there has never, not once in the history of recorded medicine, been a death from a THC overdose and you would be very hard pressed to find a violent pothead.

Just because you don't like the drug does not make it wrong. What "good reason" is there for it to be banned? There is none. The war on drugs is as unjust as was the prohibition of alcohol.

 

[Ben Swenson]

Which is bad reasoning. Not everyone who drinks does so to get drunk, but everyone who shoots heroine does so to get high.

People drink alcohol for the effects it has on their body (intoxicant, depressant, etc) or to be socially acceptable. Neither strike me as good reasons.

The amount of alcohol needed to receive the effects you talk of is also much greater than the amount of heroine needed. They are not equivalent, and neither should the laws regulating their use be.

Concentrated alcohol can be nearly as dangerous as heroin if misused. Try injecting it sometime. Or inhaling vaporized alcohol in similar quantity as you'd drink.

For the most part, illegal drugs are taken in the manner that will give the most kick for the amount taken because they are difficult to obtain. This leads to very dangerous methods of taking them into the bloodstream. The fact that drugs are outlawed drives the danger level up.

No, it does not. A good government will let the punishment fit the crime. That does not make them tyrants.

Our viewpoints are simply unreconcilable in this area.
I believe that some things are illegal, but not immoral. For instance, constructing a sound suppressor or cutting a bit of wood or steel an inch too short without Federal permission might make you a felon, however I do not believe the punishment for that crime is just.

Your position is that any punishment from the government is okay. Period.

I can't even comprehend that.

The war on drugs is.

Why?

Let me remind you of your own words in regards to the difference between the two: "I agree. I think just about anyone could tell the two apart. Doesn't mean a thing, though." So tell me, why is it no better for someone to desire to protect themselves than to desire to get wasted on some drug?

The point is not whether one is better. Obviously the person seeking to defend themself is better than the person looking to get intoxicated. The point is that neither is an area that the government should be meddling in.

If that something takes away their ability to exhibit self control and contemplate proper choices, and probably makes them dangerous to people around them, then yes you do.

Untrue. Alcohol has that effect in spades. Addiction to alcohol and tobacco can cause people to do things they wouldn't normally do. You ignore those chemicals, though.

Why? Can you give me an objective reason?

No, I am not a hypocrite. I can see that the effects of caffiene are not the same as those of heroine or weed. This isn't a logical problem with only two extremes. But those drugs that have been banned have been banned with good reason, IMO.

Okay, now compare the effects of alcohol and weed. Seriously.

Caffiene has similar effects in the way it is used today as cocaine did a century ago. How long until people start abusing caffiene?

I also have moderate views on firearms, by the way. I have not advocated unrestricted access to weaponry, but have stated that some weapons do not belong in civilian hands, including fully automatic weapons. If you don't believe me, ask XB. Excess in just about any area can be dangerous to society. That's why there are laws on what weapons people can buy, what people can do with their money (anti-trust, loansharking, etc), and what drugs they can have and use.

Ah yes, "reasonable gun control". You have plenty of company.
Not sure they're company I'd want to be in.

Do you have objective reasons for your fears of full auto when you're okay with shotguns?

Your "consistency" is founded on declaring nothing is wrong and everything is equal. And you haven't presented a clear view of right and wrong at all. So far other than little self endorsements you have failed to exhibit any interest in differentiating between the two.

Not true at all.
You are incapable of seeing the difference between legality and morality. To you, if something is immoral, it should be illegal and if it is legal it must be moral.

That mindset is repugnant.

Loss of self control isn't a standard? Being in a correct state of mind versus an altered state of mind isn't a standard? It's too bad no one's made a tape measure for that. Not having a number handy for reference does not mean any attempt at standards should be removed. Even if cases have to be evaluated on a case by case basis it is better than the lack of standards you propose.

Again, tell me that alcohol doesn't cause users to lose control. Tell me that alcohol doesn't alter your state of mind.

What I propose is that if a free adult wants to screw themselves up, whether it is through promiscuous, unprotected sex, alcohol abuse, pot abuse or heroin abuse, that should be their choice. That doesn't make what they're doing right, good or acceptable. Simply put, it just means that it is their business, not yours.

Yes. I support more restrictive laws on how certain drugs are used, especially alcohol. Just because I don't support prohibition does not mean I think anything goes. There is a middle ground.

What laws on how alcohol is used do you support? Do you support a law against private overconsumption of alcohol? What are you doing to get those laws enacted?

Despite your claims to the contrary, you sure have all the earmarks of a hypocrite.
If you weren't a hypocrite, you would support a similar type of regulation for pot as you do booze. Maybe less for pot as it isn't as physically destructive as booze is.

 

[Scope]

People drink alcohol for the effects it has on their body (intoxicant, depressant, etc) or to be socially acceptable. Neither strike me as good reasons.

Not everyone drinks to get drunk or to be socially accepted. I drink and have never gotten drunk. Plus alcohol is good for cooking, which I also use it for. Your arguments hinge on every person who drinks is abusing alcohol, and that is simply not true.

Concentrated alcohol can be nearly as dangerous as heroin if misused.

"if misused" being the key phrase. And while what you say is true, that doesn't mean heroine should be legalized. I would rather see punishment for those who abuse alcohol.

Your position is that any punishment from the government is okay. Period.

In the context of this argument I am definitely more hard-line than those who run the government. I don't think the punishments our society serves are severe enough, especially for drug dealing. That does not mean that I agree with the government on all things.

The point is that neither is an area that the government should be meddling in.

No, you said the difference was meaningless.

I do not take that stance. I prefer a strict interpretation of the constitution, allowing those authorities as spelled out in the Bill of Rights and amendments interpreted in the context of the times of those who wrote it. But I believe I have covered this point before.

Untrue. Alcohol has that effect in spades. Addiction to alcohol and tobacco can cause people to do things they wouldn't normally do. You ignore those chemicals, though.

I do not ignore their effects, but I don't think they are bad enough to require making them illegal.

Caffiene has similar effects in the way it is used today as cocaine did a century ago. How long until people start abusing caffiene?

I don't believe that at all.

Ah yes, "reasonable gun control". You have plenty of company.

Yeah, but not here. Should nerve gas be sold on the open market?

Do you have objective reasons for your fears of full auto when you're okay with shotguns?

Go look up the thread if your really that interested in finding out what I think.

You are incapable of seeing the difference between legality and morality.

If you replaced "are incapable" with "have rejected the idea", you'd be right on. The vast majority of laws are societie's judgements on some human behavior or another, just as morality is an individual's judgements on the behaviors they see or engage in. Law is an extension of morality, it is not separate from it. The laws a society enacts reflects its values and can determine its course.

That the two should be considered separate is a fallacy.

Again, tell me that alcohol doesn't cause users to lose control. Tell me that alcohol doesn't alter your state of mind.

As I said, I drink but have never become drunk. Moderate use of alcohol does not cause people to lose control.

What I propose is that if a free adult wants to screw themselves up, whether it is through promiscuous, unprotected sex, alcohol abuse, pot abuse or heroin abuse, that should be their choice. That doesn't make what they're doing right, good or acceptable. Simply put, it just means that it is their business, not yours.

If people lived in a vacuum than I would agree, but we don't. What people do can hurt those around them, even if they did not intend it. I see no reason why society should turn a blind eye to substance abuse just because someone tries to do it alone.

What laws on how alcohol is used do you support? Do you support a law against private overconsumption of alcohol? What are you doing to get those laws enacted?

I am not intimately familiar with laws regulating alcohol, but the few I know (age limits, open containers in public, etc) I do support. I also support having strict punishments for those who get drunk in public and those who drink and drive.

Despite your claims to the contrary, you sure have all the earmarks of a hypocrite.

Same to you, Mr. Morality. Why don't you tell me again how much you despise the evil of drug use, but you just can't bring your bleeding heart to do anything about it.