Guns / Drugs II

G

Glenn E. Meyer

New member
As it was nasty and being shut down. Here we go again.

Guns have the potential to be incredibly dangerous. People are killed with guns.

Mind altering substances are incredibly dangerous. Look at the death rate surrounding alcohol.

However, the RKBA folks (us) argue we have the right to own guns and the state should only move against those who misuse them.
Folks here will even argue for the right to have up to full auto crew weapons. Which are a blast to shoot. Personally, I would love an MP-5

The state gives us the right to get:
alcohol
nicotine
with some restrictions.

With registration (perscription) you can get even more powerful mind altering substances.

However, the later are for medical purposes and the former are for recreational use.

Does personal freedom and responsibility argue for the right to have arms if they are not abused? How does that differ from recreational drugs if we have penalties for the misuse of drugs and subsequent unpleasant behavior?

I have not seen the NRA protest safety caps on drugs. Is that different from safety locks?

As far as the disruption to society - if you buy the premise that some folks seek such relief from reality and that bad social conditions drive more people to seek it,
is it better that they get it without the crime and violence associated with the drug culture?

Crime stats fall except for the increase in gun crimes due to the drug culture.

Gin mills were prevalent in England to intoxicate the child workers. Social reform and not the War on Gin stopped this.

The War on Drugs erodes our basic liberties.
SWAT teams do most of their business on drug warrants.

Neighborhoods are destroyed by the dealer networks.

Last, what is wrong with people (if they don't disrupt society) getting stoned?

We argue after the fact measures to control gun crime (prosecution rather than confiscation). Is it different for drugs?
Now some more dangerous than others but would
access to some of the major controlled substances reduce the market for the more extreme ones.

Discuss with logic, data and calm, clear reason. Also, before you denounce me as some whack - I'm on the editorial board of the Prevention Research and analyzed the substance abuse data for the state of OR school system for two years.

I understand the issues.
 
I feel that drugs should be legalized. One price that you will always pay for freedom: stupid people get to be free, too. If someone does not do drugs, they still wont do them if they are legal.
 
If you legalized drugs the prison population would be cut by 1/3. How's that for cost savings?

------------------
"Some people spend an entire liftime wondering if they made a difference. Marines don't have that problem."
Semper Fi
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jack M:
One price that you will always pay for freedom: stupid people get to be free, too.[/quote]

Exactly right, Jack. And why that bothers so many people -- to the point where they feel they must make other peoples' choices for them -- remains a mystery to me.

[This message has been edited by David Roberson (edited June 29, 2000).]
 
The War on Drugs was lost years ago. Some day we need to sign the surrender documents. Don't get me wrong - I've absolutely no use for them and think it's idiocy to use them, but how many billions have we spent to little or no effect?

BTW, I'm unaware of the current stat's, but accidental poisonings with prescription and OTC drugs actually increased after the introduction of "child-proof" containers. Why? Because folk didn't think little Johnny or Susy could get into them and didn't pay as much attention. (Can you say, "false sense of security?" Good. I knew you could.)

------------------
"...and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."
Luke 22:36
"An armed society is a polite society."
Robert Heinlein
"Power corrupts. Absolute power - is kinda cool!"
Fred Reed
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Glenn E. Meyer:

The state gives us the right to get:
alcohol
nicotine
with some restrictions.[/quote]

I want to take issue with this point of your original post. Under our constitutional system, the state does not give us any rights.

We have rights because we are free human beings.

The state can only curtail, limit, restrict, destroy, hamper, and take away our rights.



[This message has been edited by Dizzipator (edited June 29, 2000).]
 
Legalize drugs? Ok do it.
Now how many more people will die in automoblies?
How many more armed robberies will happen?

How many more unwanted babies born?

How higher will our taxes go up to support these brain dead people and unwanted babies?

Don't we have enough trouble with alcohol?
 
And, if you allow people to have full capacity magazines, full auto assault rifles, etc., then we'd have more armed robberies, more killings, etc., and thus ... we can't allow that kind of freedom? The analogy seems so obvious and apt to me, but I know ... there are many folks who believe as you do.

So, JHS, you're among those that believe the only reason we don't have more dopers is because of your laws? Sorry, but I no longer believe that, and I'm disappointed at how many still do. It would appear that you are still in the majority.

Just do us one favor ... when the Bill of Rights is finally and clearly dead, please remember this conversation, and ask yourself then whether the 'War on Drugs', the 'War on Guns' and the future 'War on who-knows-what' were really worth it.

Regards from AZ
 
Jeff;
The problem is the addiction. It is complete!
All rational behavior is out the window!
Full auto-rifles hi-cap mags will not take over the body.
 
Prohibition. Remember how well that worked? Sometime in the not too distant future they'll be laughing at us, just like we laugh at the lightweight thinkers who bought us Prohibition. Let the dopers stay home and do cheap dope instead of robbing and killing people to get expensive dope. Giving them dope (and treatment?) will be cheaper than building jails. Of course, if they hurt anyone other than themselves we will still have jails. They're going to do the dope one way or the other.
And guns? I firmly believe that people should be rewarded or punished for their actions. No harm, no foul. Misuse a gun - jail. John
 
Damn, Glenn,
We actually agree on something? Can't be! I must of misread your post ;)

Anyhow, the Federal Government will never cease the war on drugs, as it is their means of destroying all personal freedoms, propelling them to ultimate power. They tell the people that in order to fight drugs, they must be allowed to invade our homes, limit our weapons, confiscate our property, build more prisons, hire more Federal Agents, armed with weapons of war, raise taxes, criminalize the possession of "large" amounts of cash, etc. etc. Of course the lemmings buy it hook, line and sinker.

I do not use recreational drugs (Ok, maybe the occasional home brew or bottle of fine wine), but I say, end the war on drugs today, and stop the insanity! But then, without the "war on drugs", how could the Federal Fascists justify their abuses of power?
 
The comparison between alcohol and nicotine with marijuana and psychedelic drugs is ludicrous.

How high are you after drinking one beer?
How high are you after smoking one joint?
How about one dose of LSD?
One tobacco cigarette?

Korea, Japan, Malaysia, Singapore, and Taiwan are now the world's industrial production powerhouses, while we sit in a drugged virtual reality with our virtual jobs and virtual personalities trying to imitate virtual TeeVee people and whimper about how oppressed we are.

That people can support the "right" of others to turn their brains into pus is disgusting. These dopesters reproduce, vote, teach, and poison the intellectual waters with their drugged virtual thinking and virtual logic, and have done so for the past forty years. It goes a long way to explain the prevalence of psychotic liberalism/socialism as the dominant ideology in the USA.

We need a TOTAL WAR on drugs.




[This message has been edited by Munro Williams (edited June 29, 2000).]
 
Munro, if your point is that those nations are more productive than the U.S., please post some backup for that assertion. If that's not your point then ... what was it? And, if you want a 'Total War on Drugs', then I suppose the Bill of Rights is simply not pertinent anymore?

Personally, I'm not interested in living in a country where we execute people ('Total War') for smoking joints and popping pills, but LEO's celebrate drugs busts by stopping for a couple beers at the local bar.

And, JHS, if 'addiction' is your touchstone, then please explain why we prohibit various recreational drugs that are proven not addictive. Did you take 'Reefer Madness' seriously? ;) Do you honestly think that most (if not all) recreational drugs are immediately or almost immediately addictive?

Someone else noted above that freedom and liberty also means that foolish people will make stupid choices. You're not preventing many of them from doing that with our existing 'War on Drugs' ... you're simply making the entire situation more violent, more expensive and more damaging to many people than it ever had to be.

Clearly we haven't lost enough rights, we haven't killed enough people and we haven't put enough folks in jail. Apparently 'we' feel compelled to damage our country more and more until the cost is too great to bear. And then, we'll dump this foolishness ... but, probably not in any of our lifetimes.

For me, I'll vote for allowing you to do what you (as an adult) want with your body and your mind, but I hold you completely responsible for your actions regardless of the drugs you do.

Regards from AZ
 
The Constitution authorizes suspension of habeus corpus during time of war or rebellion, and if you don't think that the liberal/socialist axis hasn't declared war on the USA, subverting and destroying it with every effort then you haven't been paying attention.

You guys see this as a peace time issue. I see it as common sense during a siege. Our basic ideas are under attack every waking moment and there are those like Clinton who stay awake late at night trying to figure out other ways to destroy the Republic.

In this context, listening to people consider the depraved oppressed victims is a little too much. In the interests of civility I will stop posting on this thread.
:mad: :mad:
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Munro Williams:
That people can support the "right" of others to turn their brains into pus is disgusting.[/quote]

Sure. Also:

That people can support the "right" of others to own easily-concealable handguns that have no purpose but to kill is disgusting.

That people can support the "right" of others to own deadly high-capacity ammunition feeding devices with no sporting purpose is disgusting.

That people can support the "right" of others to own long-range rifles capable of killing innocent people hundred of yards away is disgusting.

It's sad that some who cherish freedom of choice on issues important to them are so certain that others shouldn't be allowed to make their own choices on issues of importance to them.


[This message has been edited by David Roberson (edited June 30, 2000).]
 
To JHS:

If you read the literature you will find that armed robberies are driven by the need to generate money to buy drugs.

As far as unwanted babies, the illegitimacy rate is climbing. In some segments of the population it is reaching 70%.

Daniel Patrick Monihan, who despite his antigun fervor, is no dope pointed this out as a problem with the rate was 35% in these segments of the population. Now the rate in other seemingly at first population segments is reaching 35%.

These babies are not unwanted and actually work in a sense for the mothers - it is a complex issue.

They are not the product of being stoned.

I am also not willing to abandon our civil liberties for a baggie of grass.

Besides, if you haven't figured it out, the day they suspend habeus corpus to get the dope, they will also seize every gun they can find. If you make the danger to society argument to suspend civil liberties then guns will be the first big loser.
 
Last time I checked, driving while impaired and armed robbery are already crimes, use the money saved from ending the "WOD" to enforce those laws. Freedom never comes cheap. Maybe I'm just a dumb hick, but I was raised to believe that a certain amount of disorder was inevitable in a free society, but that any free man should be willing to pay the price. So I will spell out my simple view: DRUGS BAD, TYRANNY WORSE!

[This message has been edited by Jack M (edited June 30, 2000).]
 
Glenn;

I worked in child care for 7 years and if I haven't see it all, I would be shocked.

I know what drugs/alcohol do to the family.
I have seen alot a wasted lives,I don't like it.

No one will convince me that legalized drugs will make this country better. It will sure help the devil out. Satan is always is the mix.
Just before I came out here,I had a boy that was a good enough kid,quiet did not look for trouble.Once in a while he would jump in with both feet.
You see his dad drank himself to death and the boy blamed himself for the death of his father.
This story can be played out all over this nation. I will not be apart of a new wave of junkies.
I have a in-law that has smoked pot for 30 years. He/She can't have a lasting relationship,can't keep a job and it's always someone else that is at fault.He/She could be an artist,or a writer in H-wood. What a waste!
Munro Williams is on the mark also.
That is how I see it.
Stay safe.
John
 
JHS - I know what you are saying, I've seen the destruction of family by drugs AND LEGAL BOOZE. I've spent hours talking about alcoholism to a now dead relative.

But I could word process guns into your piece
with a little changes and make the same argument against firearms possession. I've seen suicides and the like.

Wouldn't a war on guns stop Columbine?

Complete registration (Rxs for Ammo) would stop abuse.

My point is that mindless remedies may not work.

Who is for a return to Prohibition?

Alcohol is a tremendous threat. The cocanie addiction rate is higher now that when it was legal.

Substance abuse is horrific but Munro wants to fundamentally change our civil rights to seize drugs.

Is it worth it?

I suggest all with this position and who in their youth might have dabbling in illegal substances - go to the court and demand your sentence.

Also, do it if perchance you ever had a firearm where it wasn't supposed to be.

Of course, no one here ever did either of these two.

It is a common problem that the horror of an issue pushes people to simple and stupid solutions.

Columbine - ban all guns. Kick in the doors if your neighbor says you are a gun nut.

Drug - suspend habeus corpus?

Hmm!
 
Glenn, some of our friends here are never going to see it. They'll keep fighting and supporting the 'War on Drugs' year after year, and all the while bemoan the loss of our civil rights ... and, bemoan the fact we still have drug addicts and all the attendant problems.

I honestly think that things apparently have to get much, much worse before people take a hard look at the reality of this problem. It's a shame, because I certainly don't want to see this continued erosion of the Bill of Rights.

Regards from AZ
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top