[raleur]

Originally Posted by subego 

Ironically, I'm anti-death penalty. "Kill em' young" is my motto.

Must. Avoid. Reference. To NRA... dang.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by subego 

Ironically, I'm anti-death penalty. "Kill em' young" is my motto.

To an extent, me too, pro-choice and anti-death penalty. Also pro-gun, pro-gay marriage, and anti-war. It's tough when you're almost evenly split along the ideological divide.

[subego]

I've always seen these as the same ideology. The problem is the two parties place zero value in coherence of their positions.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

Was it here where someone pointed this out about abortion? I think it applies to guns.

Pro-lifers think babies are getting murdered. The pro-choicers don't. The pro-lifers will not only never convince the pro-choicers that's what's happening, most pro-choicers aren't even willing to consider the possibility.

The reverse is true as well. Good luck convincing a pro-lifer you aren't murdering a baby.


Ironically, even though I'm pro-choice, I have more sympathy for the rigid thinking of a pro-lifer than a pro-choicer.

Yes. Great parallel.

[subego]

Whoops! Thank you!

[gradient]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

It's not that big a double-standard. If you believe in the ideal of the bill of rights, then you can't support any "work around" of any of our rights protected by it. Otherwise you open the door for all rights to be abandoned whenever it's convenient. Drugs, abortion and prostitution aren't protected by the bill of rights, but guns are.

Keep in mind that this isn't just an American issue, though in fairness I suppose I did kind of frame it that way by using the term "right to bear arms". Here in Canada we have a similar argument (admittedly slanted far more towards the pro-gun control side). The conservative element here routinely fights against stricter gun control in the name of freedom while simultaneously arguing against any legislation that would relax our stance on drugs or other illicit freedoms. This, without any fundamental document that provides a supposed right to firearms.

For that reason, even though it's a legitimate argument, I think this goes far beyond any sort of slippery slope argument.

You also have to allow for the possibility that "conservative" merely means to conserve things the way they were, and historically guns (and god) were commonplace, and abortion wasn't. Prostitution was though, I don't know how that fits in. It's the oldest profession after all. Maybe it's a carry-over from that god thing I mentioned.

I suppose there could be some truth to that, though I'd argue that it's a stance that's more or less akin to burying ones head in the sand. There are plenty of things that were either common or uncommon in the past which have been reversed over time as society progresses and becomes more enlightened.

[gradient]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Not always, but on this subject there won't be common ground.

If you don't mind, Shaddim, what is your stance on personal drug use and other similarly illicit freedoms? I ask because you've been one of the staunchest pro-gun advocates here, so I'm curious.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by gradient 

If you don't mind, Shaddim, what is your stance on personal drug use and other similarly illicit freedoms? I ask because you've been one of the staunchest pro-gun advocates here, so I'm curious.

I don't believe it's the government's place to tell you what you can or can't do with your body.

[gradient]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I don't believe it's the government's place to tell you what you can or can't do with your body.

Fair enough, thanks.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by gradient 

I suppose there could be some truth to that, though I'd argue that it's a stance that's more or less akin to burying ones head in the sand. There are plenty of things that were either common or uncommon in the past which have been reversed over time as society progresses and becomes more enlightened.

Isn't that an indictment of the whole concept of conservatism, in the abstract? Do you think it's valid to believe that at some point we should have reached the optimum of lawmaking, and any further changes bring more damage than improvement, and the biggest question is how to know when we've reached that point?

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by gradient 

It seems to me that if people should have a right to own guns responsibly, they should also have a right to do some coke after work if they want to, smoke a joint on a sunny day in the park, or spend a lazy Sunday snorting heroine (so long, of course, that they do it responsibly without harming others).

I know this sounds like a big troll, but I'm genuinely curious.

Only if you can give one example where drugs such as meth have benefited society or someone in it? Benefited anyone, other than the war lord selling it.

Know anyone who's said, "Wow I'm really glad I took some meth just to try it, ended up addicted after the first use and started breaking into cars scrounging for change, and stealing from my family to feed my craving"?

It'd be a great form of population control if you're into that. A lot more people I think would die by drugs than by guns if legalized.

[subego]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

Only if you can give one example where drugs such as meth have benefited society or someone in it?

To paraphrase Bill Hicks, an example would be your entire ****ing iTunes collection.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

Only if you can give one example where drugs such as meth have benefited society or someone in it? Benefited anyone, other than the war lord selling it.

Know anyone who's said, "Wow I'm really glad I took some meth just to try it, ended up addicted after the first use and started breaking into cars scrounging for change, and stealing from my family to feed my craving"?

It'd be a great form of population control if you're into that. A lot more people I think would die by drugs than by guns if legalized.

I don't think this is all that relevant.

This is about a fundamental question as to whether people are responsible enough to make decisions like this themselves without government intervention. Both irresponsible gun ownership and drug use can be of detriment to others, but should people be allowed to make these decisions on their own? There are people that do drugs recreationally that have no impact on you.

This is a worthwhile question, and something that I have struggled with deciding myself. It is definitely a worthwhile question for people like turtle who believe these matters should be about our personal responsibility (and I'm not picking on him, he seems ideologically consistent with his Libertarian viewpoints)

[gradient]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

Only if you can give one example where drugs such as meth have benefited society or someone in it? Benefited anyone, other than the war lord selling it.

Know anyone who's said, "Wow I'm really glad I took some meth just to try it, ended up addicted after the first use and started breaking into cars scrounging for change, and stealing from my family to feed my craving"?

It'd be a great form of population control if you're into that. A lot more people I think would die by drugs than by guns if legalized.

From this statement, I have to assume that you have either never done drugs or have only done so in an extremely limited capacity and with a vary narrow perspective.

Besides that, it's a bad argument to begin with as it could easily be applied to a whole host of other legal consumer products. For example, if you don't believe that drugs can benefit society or individuals how would you justify alcohol being legal?

[gradient]

Originally Posted by subego 

To paraphrase Bill Hicks, an example would be your entire ****ing iTunes collection.

So True.

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by gradient 

From this statement, I have to assume that you have either never done drugs or have only done so in an extremely limited capacity and with a vary narrow perspective.

Your right. Now, have you done Meth, or PCP? Just to name a few...

Besides that, it's a bad argument to begin with as it could easily be applied to a whole host of other legal consumer products. For example, if you don't believe that drugs can benefit society or individuals how would you justify alcohol being legal?

First of all comparing drugs to guns in the way you did is a bad argument. You see you grouped all drugs together... as just drugs, then compared them to gun control. I specified meth as an example. And your answer was that I must not have done 'drugs'. Did you mean I must not have done meth? Do you think I have exaggerated the effects of meth? Have I criticized it unfairly? and its value to society? What about PCP? You see not all drugs are created equal. If you think making music is so dependent on a specific non-dangerous drug, say so and argue for the legalized use of that drug. Your argument would be like me trying to make a case for the legalization of missiles and fully automatic weapons by posting examples of people using hand guns to defend themselves.

Actually it wouldn't take much to convince me that we should completely abandon the war on drugs. But that has more to do with the government's failure on this front; or should I say, government making a business of the whole thing...

[gradient]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

Your right. Now, have you done Meth, or PCP? Just to name a few...


First of all comparing drugs to guns in the way you did is a bad argument. You see you grouped all drugs together... as just drugs, then compared them to gun control. I specified meth as an example. And your answer was that I must not have done 'drugs'. Did you mean I must not have done meth? Do you think I have exaggerated the effects of meth? Have I criticized it unfairly? and its value to society? What about PCP? You see not all drugs are created equal. If you think making music is so dependent on a specific non-dangerous drug, say so and argue for the legalized use of that drug. Your argument would be like me trying to make a case for the legalization of missiles and fully automatic weapons by posting examples of people using hand guns to defend themselves.

Actually it wouldn't take much to convince me that we should completely abandon the war on drugs. But that has more to do with the government's failure on this front; or should I say, government making a business of the whole thing...

No, I haven't done meth. In fact, I admittedly missed that your point was specifically about meth, not the war on drugs in general. As far as your attack on this thread's premise - I'm not the one that lumped all drugs together; our governments did that and coined the term "War on Drugs", which is why I framed the question that way.

I'm quite aware that not all drugs are equal. I have seen the negative effects of addiction in those very close to me. I have also, though, lived enough to know that much of what is contraband is far less harmful than it's made out to be, in moderation, and that there are some tangible benefits for drug users. Education and moderation are key elements; abuse is obviously a problem as it is with anything.

My response that you must not have done drugs might have come across as an immature one to you, that's fine. I said it, though, because (as cliche as this sounds), it's probably impossible for you to understand the potential benefits if you haven't had first person experience.

Anyway, I'm not actually arguing in favour of making all drugs legal and unregulated or anything; there are limits to everything that is for sure.

Overall, I'm posing a question to those who support the right to own firearms because I'm genuinely interested in where the line in the sand is for people and what the reasons are for it.

Where is the line in the sand to you?

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by gradient 

No, I haven't done meth. In fact, I admittedly missed that your point was specifically about meth, not the war on drugs in general. As far as your attack on this thread's premise - I'm not the one that lumped all drugs together; our governments did that and coined the term "War on Drugs", which is why I framed the question that way.

I'm quite aware that not all drugs are equal. I have seen the negative effects of addiction in those very close to me. I have also, though, lived enough to know that much of what is contraband is far less harmful than it's made out to be, in moderation, and that there are some tangible benefits for drug users. Education and moderation are key elements; abuse is obviously a problem as it is with anything.

My response that you must not have done drugs might have come across as an immature one to you, that's fine. I said it, though, because (as cliche as this sounds), it's probably impossible for you to understand the potential benefits if you haven't had first person experience.

Anyway, I'm not actually arguing in favour of making all drugs legal and unregulated or anything; there are limits to everything that is for sure.

Overall, I'm posing a question to those who support the right to own firearms because I'm genuinely interested in where the line in the sand is for people and what the reasons are for it.

Where is the line in the sand to you?

So you don't support the right to own firearms? Well in any case this subject of prohibition vs firearm laws has been brought up by conservatives in other threads and last I checked it was largely ignored. Firearm supporters said it would create an unregulated black market of weapons-dealers/crime-rings and that's not what we as a nation wanted.
Where do I draw the line?
Well a lot of what I say is interpreted as crazy talk, but that's ok Im used to it around here... And this is about to be another one of those posts. I don't align with any parties views on this, I consider them extreme, as they aren't very effective. My views are actually more middle of the road while everyone else is extreme. So for example I wouldn't absolutely legalize or absolutely prohibit marijuana. If I were king... It would be illegal to sell and smoke; but there would be no enforcement of it. Only if you were caught red handed selling it or smoking it in a public area would you be in trouble with the government. There would be no helicopters searching for grow lights in the basements of homes, no investigations, no sting operations. People would learn they could safely grow it in their house, keep it underground and the government would mind its own business. Marijuana has been unfairly labeled as a safe drug because people tend to use it more responsibly than alcohol. These are apples to oranges comparisons. It's legal to get completely trashed on alcohol in public; it's not legal to have anything to do with pot at any time any where... So of course people are going to be more careful when using it... King el chupacabra the great's laws would accomplish a few things. His majesty would continue the war on pot across the border to keep the cartel's cost high. The lack of enforcement on my own citizens would lower the price and eventually suffocate the crime ring's business. By keeping it "illegal" on paper it would encourage responsible usage of the substance. I would then ban any establishment from selling alcohol (bars/clubs not stores) unless it was a micro brew or something along those lines. Liquor licenses would be hard to get. Liberals have done a good job convincing me alcohol is used much more irresponsibly and dangerous than pot. Seeing the droves of idiots rampage out of the bars screaming, driving, crashing into everyone and everything, fighting over whose girl rubbed her butt on whose peepee on the dance floor at 2 am has reinforced my negative opinion of it. When you walk by the bars downtown you here a mix of crappy music all playing at the same time. Such barney tunes as dj casper cha cha slide, chicken noodle soup, kesha, no doubt, gangnam style that only a child or mentally impaired drunk person could stand to listen to without having a seizure then vomiting... And they listen to it over, and over, and over again. After a while of people making a lifestyle out of this there is permanent damage to their IQ; it gets to the point where you cant even tell if they're drunk or not. Society does not need any more things making people dumb. So my alcohol laws would be like my pot laws; you could still have you're fun, drink at parties, private events, the kind of places where the people who know you are more likely to pull the keys than a bar.

His highness would put an end to the drug way in 4 months. Lasers from the sky would rain down on all the drug bosses houses, since we know where they are. The US military would be in Mexico, phone lines would be tapped, we would kill any gangster we saw on sight. A maginot line would be drawn across the Guatemalan border by the US military and border patrol. The US would subsidize Mexican schools so millions of kids weren't dropping out at 11 years old with nothing better to do than join a gang. kingacabra would work with the mex government all the way on this of course. Mexico would be brought up the to level of Canada; a productive, safe nation. Drop out age would be 16. There is a sinister plot here. King me looks at Mexico like a snob looks at his messy neighbor and want to use the homeowners association to force that neighbor to fix his place up... just enough to make my place feel more comfortable being next door. I only want to educate Mexicans enough to keep them safe and get them to trade school; so they could replace Asia as our manufacturing base. We could pay them more for their labor and it would still be cheaper for us since we would be doing business with people 2hrs away rather than the other side of the world. It would be much easier for the little guy as more US people speak Spanish than all the different languages and dialects of Asia.
Where would King Me get all the money for this? Easy. The money I'd save by not bailing out billionaires who made bad investment decisions. The money Id save by not paying Pakistan to hide terrorists, Egypt to hate Israel, or countless trillions spent on our military to practice blowing stuff up. They wont need training under me, they'll learn on the job. They'll be put to work building things in Mexico rather than blowing up props in the US.
Anyway it's much more complex than where do I draw the line on republican policy vs democrat policy. It's an intricate web of economics that causes these problems. Democrat republican is just a bunch of nonsense. The government loves that you're always fighting with each other about sound bites petty issues. United you stand against them, divided you fall for their deceit and fail to see the truth.

As for firearms they are already regulated pretty well; I would regulate them more; but not ban them.
In any case it's too late, the government is already in the process of knocking down doors beating people up and stealing their guns. The process to disarm the nation started a while ago.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

The drug war is responsible for gun crime in the first place (in as much as gun crime is really just crime performed with a gun). If we didn't work so hard to create a black market where murder was required in order to enforce contracts, there would not be such a large driving force behind the need to commit violent crimes in the first place. The choice of which weapon to use to perpetrate those crimes would become moot. That underground drug culture keeps people poor (by driving up the cost of drugs and the cost of living due to all the wasted resources on all sides from implementing and evading prosecution) is also a driving force for crime in general, as poverty correlates more strongly with violent crime than any other cofactor found to date.

The fact that there is an overlap between the people who support gun rights and drug enforcement is ironic, I'll give you that. I don't speak for them I only speak for me. The only "smart" reason I can think of for someone supporting both is to use drugs as a convenient scapegoat that never goes away and never defends itself.

I totally agree and living in a port city with a drug problem I can tell you right now with full confidence that the majority of crime comes from the fact that drugs are prohibitied. If all drugs where legalized including the real bad ones, packaged, and retailed with proper prescription services avaible for those that developed problems with the drugs we would have a drastic drop in all crime catagories except domestic violence and rape. Murders and theift/robberies would all go down.

In Vancouver almost ALL gun deaths are related to the drug trade. The number of people murdered by guns from disputes outside of the drug trade is so rare I I think its one every few years. We have way more murders from knives, bats and the first murder of 2013 in the city was by sword. All the shootings are targeted killings related to drugs.

Vancouver has some of the highest car theift stats and a lot of thefit from auto and home and that is fueled by drug addicts who cant afford the high costs of drugs.

Most of our perceptions of high crime levels and violence translate into failed policies around drugs. A CBC study last year found Canadain youth in Vancouver had a easy time obtaining pot but a hard time obtaining booze and cigerates. A drug dealer working the street does not care about who he sells too. Stores on the other hand care and don't want to be fined or lose there license. You don't see many people selling booze and smokes on the streets because its not profitable enough for the risk since most people buy it in the stores.

If you want to limit and make more difficult the access of drugs to youth then you legalize it and control the sale of it. If you want to reduce the level of theift and crime in cities you legalize drugs and offer through medical services a maintance program for those that develope addiction problems. If you want to end the murders and violence that comes with the drug trade which is what makes up a large number of murders you take away the profit of the business. This is done through retail sales not prohibition. One just has to look at the violence that went with prohibition in Chicago when booze was outlawed.

Gun violence is a direction result to failed backwards drug policies, trying to police individuals from harming themselves. A good drug law is prohibition of driving while on drugs. A bad drug law is the prohibition of the drug itself. One is good for public safety and enforcable. The other isnt.

Mean while guns get a bad rap over bad policies that create the enviroment in which guns will be used against people.

If all the money that went into drug prohibition went into mental health resources the crazies that shoot up innocent people would be greatly reduced too.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

Only if you can give one example where drugs such as meth have benefited society or someone in it? Benefited anyone, other than the war lord selling it.

Know anyone who's said, "Wow I'm really glad I took some meth just to try it, ended up addicted after the first use and started breaking into cars scrounging for change, and stealing from my family to feed my craving"?

It'd be a great form of population control if you're into that. A lot more people I think would die by drugs than by guns if legalized.

And booze and cigs benifit society?

Drunk driving kills way more people each year then all drugs combined and all guns combined.

[gradient]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

So you don't support the right to own firearms?

Actually, I do, but within strict limits. My opinion on drugs is similar. There are some that I have no issue with and would like to see legalized and highly regulated - others are clearly deadly and should remain outlawed. It's the much broader "war on drugs" policy that I have a problem with. I would never be in support of a complete "war on guns", either.

As for the rest of your post, the wall of text honestly made it hard to read - I don't think I digested enough of it to comment though yes, it kind of sounded like crazy talk.

[Athens]

The outlawed ones would still create a blackmarket because people will still want those outlawed ones. The situation does not change it just shifts. The cartels still explolit people and you still have gun violence with the drugs. All drugs must be controlled and limited with nothing outlawed. A store bought meth stick is going to be way different from what you buy on the street.

[subego]

With the exception of people who would try harder drugs just because they could (which I would agree is an issue), I think a surprising amount of people only want, in the words of Sam Kinison, OUR POT BACK! GIVE US OUR POT BACK! AUUUUGH! AUUUUGH!

[Shaddim]

I had to give up pot, since I now have a child and civic responsibilities, and I miss it. Oh well.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I had to give up pot, since I now have a child and civic responsibilities, and I miss it. Oh well.

Do you drink at all? Like maybe boys night on a Friday night?

[Shaddim]

I do drink, but haven't been drunk in many years.

[Athens]

I dont see the difference over a little weed use once in a while along a little drinking, i mean when civic responsibilities and children are involved. I wouldnt say smoke up in front of a child or while protesting something at City hall. But boys night out at the club whats the harm

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Athens 

I wouldnt say smoke up in front of a child...

Well that's one difference, you don't have to physically leave in order to do it

[Athens]

And I'm West Coast lol, if I had a kid they would have more chance walking through a cloud of weed smoke on the side walk then tobacco smoke lol

[Shaddim]

One is legal, the other is not. I could potentially be tested for drugs, though unlikely, and that's difference enough.

[subego]

Who would test you for drugs?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by subego 

Who would test you for drugs?

Potentially, the sheriff's dept, but it's very unlikely.

[subego]

Why?

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

One is legal, the other is not. I could potentially be tested for drugs, though unlikely, and that's difference enough.

you are just living in the wrong state lol You could say you spent time in Washington for the weekend so it was done legally lol