# Should both drugs and guns be legal?



## DeLamar.J (Jul 22, 2004)

lets discuss this article. I completely agree and would vote for Mr.Dave Duffy for president, I would even be willing to give my left nut for this guy to be president. What do all of you think??

 :rtfm: 


Should both drugs and guns be legal?


by Dave Duffy 


Answering the question of Should drugs be legal? is like answering the question of Should guns be legal? Whoever answers either question steps onto a minefield of passionate oppositionfrom conservatives if you say yes to drugs, and from liberals if you say yes to guns. Thats why its easier to recognize that both questions are really part of a much larger and more important question: Should government be controlled? And the answer to that question, as well as the other two, is yes. 

The illegalization of drugs gives government the excuse to trample our rights, under the guise of protecting us and our children from their effects, and the illegalization of guns will give government the ability to totally trample our rights because we would have no defense against it. 

What has the illegalization of drugs accomplished? 

 Prisons are overcrowded with drug offenders sentenced under mandatory sentencing laws while violent offenders go free to make room. The result is the U.S. now has the highest incarceration rate in the world, made up mainly of people who have never committed a violent crimepretty incredible for a free country. 

 There is increased corruption in our police and judicial systems due to the large amount of money available for payoffs. The poorer you are the more likely you are to go to jail; monied drug lords with their high-priced lawyers have little to fear from the law. 

 Millions of Americans who suffer from chronic pain go undermedicated because doctors are afraid to prescribe pain killers for fear of being investigated (a number have already been sent to prison) by a drug enforcement agency. A U.S. health agency has called the suffering of these patients a national disgrace. 

 Seizure of property from citizens who have not been found guilty of any crime has gone sky-high, thanks to drug laws that give police the power to seize property suspected of being involved in a crime. Its up to the owner to prove his property is innocent. Orwellian? 

 The War on Drugs is a repeat of Prohibition in the 30s. The amount of drugs consumed in America has not gone down appreciably, but the price of them has gone way up, making them even more attractive to sell. 

What will the illegalization of guns accomplish? 

 This is the classic history lesson of our century. Like all the communist and fascist states that outlawed guns before turning against their own people, we will be powerless to resist our government should it turn against us. And judging from our governments conduct in its War on Drugs, it already has. 

What about the arguments against making drugs legal and keeping guns legal? Both are essentially the same: drugs and guns lead to the destruction of our children, the former through destroying their physical and mental well being and the latter through killing them outright. 

Both arguments play on the publics desire to protect their children at all costs. Those who would keep drugs illegal would imprison our children rather than have them take drugs, and those who would make guns illegal would expose our children to the potential enslavement of a government turned tyrannical rather than let them be endangered by guns. (Another story is the fact that Justice Department statistics show that guns are used by private citizens to prevent violent crimes far more often than they are used to commit crimes, but the stories behind those statistics never make it into the newspapers. I wonder why?) 

People in government, especially the cadre of bureaucrats who think they know best how we should run our lives, find these excuses convenient to hide behind. The illegalization of drugs has given our government the excuse it needs to stop us on the street and make a warrantless search of our person, to invade our home on the suspicion we may be using drugs, and to send our children to prison for their own good. The illegalization of guns would allow the government to go even further because we would have no way to resist police in what appears to be our emerging police state. 

I am the father of four children and heres what I think of the government and their conservative and liberal supporters who want to protect my children against drugs and guns: Leave my children alone. They are my concern, not yours. I would rather they ran the risk of experimenting with drugs than have some government agent send them to prison to be gang raped by hard core criminals. And I would rather they risked being gunshot than have them live out their lives as servants to a tyrannical government without any chance to restore their freedom through armed resistance. 

Drugs and guns may be bad if used badly, but an all powerful Government is much worse. The illegalization of drugs may have sounded like a good idea in theory once, but it has given Government far too much power over us. And the proposed illegalization of guns may sound like a good idea in theory to some because it is supposed to help keep our children safe, but in reality it will take away our last and ultimate defense against government. And like our Founding Fathers I would rather live free with some peril than live as the protected slave of government. 

The question is this: Do we want a powerful government that can come into our homes or stop us on the street at will and arrest us on the suspicion we may be guilty of a crime, that can seize our property on the suspicion it is guilty, and that sends our children to prison for their own good? Or do we want a government that dares not trample on our rights guaranteed in our Constitution? 

If the latter, then both drugs and guns must be legal.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jul 22, 2004)

Hmmm.  I hadn't read something like that before: it has a different angle on the issue. 

I think both guns and drugs should be legal, but regulated by the government.  I feel the same way about prostitution, actually, for similar reasons.  Although some might see the federal government as a kind of organized crime  I would rather have governement regulations in place for these things.  

Having said that, I would also change the legal system in this country - and make violent assault or homicide more severely punished than destuction of property.  And if drug use were no longer illegal (some drugs I still think should be - like crystal meth.  That will burn you permanently.), then all the people in prison right now for smoking pot would be out of there and napping at home.  

Thanks for the post - that was interesting.


----------



## DeLamar.J (Jul 22, 2004)

no prob. Im trying to get the word out there. Its time for a revolution! :mp5:


----------



## Cruentus (Jul 22, 2004)

It boils down to this simple premise for me:

*You can't regulate what someone wants to do with their own body; nor should you try to in a "free" country.* 

Guns are a different issue, but this applies to a lot of things, particularly drugs. You can't tell people what they can or can't do with their bodies. You can't regulate obesiety, drug use, alcahol and tabacco use, prostitution, suicide (not assisted but attempted), and so on. If you try, you will fail. 

In terms of substances, you can regulate the distribution of unpure products, or even unsafe products.

You can regulate distribution to minors.

Hell, there is a lot of things that can be regulated, but what people do or put in to their bodies is not one of them.

Heck...and not to change the subject but it does apply, you can't regulate abortion. For the record, I hate abortion, and I think that it's kid killing regardless of what stage in the pregnancy. However, you can't regulate it because then you are regulating what a woman does with her body.

*What happends when you try to regulate what people can/cannot do with their bodies?* 

If you try to regulate what people can/can't do, you will fail. Period. The reason is because control over ones own bodies is a basic human right which will be excersied regardless of what any entity tries to say. People will excersise this right, regardless of the costs.

So, what happenes when you DO try to regulate what one can or cannot do with ones body? For one, you violate basic human rights. For two, a black market is created to facilitate whatever has become illegal. Prohibition, our current drug war, and underground abortion clinics are examples of a black market. The problem with the black market is it can only be regulated by chaotic rule and violence. So, more people are harmed by a product of poor quality. And, like our "Drug war," more violence is created by the sheer fact that the substances are illegal.

So that covers that rule. You can't regulate what people can or can't do with their bodies, and if you try too you'll fail.

Now on to guns...


----------



## pete (Jul 22, 2004)

that would be like selling guns and whiskey to the indians...


----------



## Flatlander (Jul 22, 2004)

As long as people don't get high and go hunting...


----------



## DeLamar.J (Jul 22, 2004)

flatlander said:
			
		

> As long as people don't get high and go hunting...


But that would be the best part, imagine vaporising a bear with an uzi  :mp5: 
 :lol:  just kidding


----------



## Cruentus (Jul 22, 2004)

Guns...

Another basic human right is the right to self-defense. You can't take away this right no matter how hard you try. Well, if a criminal trys to rob you with a 7 inch combat knife and all you can carry is a 1/2 inch nail clipper because thats what legal, I am sorry, but your rights to self defense has been taken away. If the criminal can get a gun on the black market, and your not allowed to carry one, then your right to self defense no longer exists.

Furthermore, the second amendment allows us to do a few things. We were allowed to bear arms for self defense. We were also allowed to create our own militia so that states and locals could defend themselves. We were also allowed to bear arms so we could revolt if our government turned tyranical.

Taking away our rights to bear arms takes away our rights to self-defense, whether it be against our government, or against the criminals who will carry no matter what the law is.
 :mp5: 
PAUL


----------



## DeLamar.J (Jul 22, 2004)

You are my kind of person man. I agree with you all the way.


----------



## lonecoyote (Jul 22, 2004)

It sounds great, and sign me up, except that I think it's too late. The main function of our government it seems, is to perpetuate itself and grow more powerful. We are in a situation where every special interest group thinks that the answer to its problems is legislation, and more legislation.


----------



## Flatlander (Jul 22, 2004)

In Canada, it's illegal to carry a sidearm.  From a report by the Fraser Institute here: http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/admin/books/files/FailedExperiment.pdf

​


> This brief review of gun laws shows that disarming the public has not reduced criminal violence in any country examined here: not in Great Britain, not in Canada, and not in Australia. In all cases, disarming the public has been ineffective, expensive, and often counter productive. In all cases, the means have involved setting up expensive bureaucracies that produce no noticeable improvement to public safety or have made the situation worse. The results of this study are consistent with other academic research, that most gun laws do not have any measurable effect on crime (Kleck 1997: 377; Jacobs 2002). As I have argued elsewhere (Mauser 2001a), the history of gun control in both Canada and the Commonwealth demonstrates the slippery slope of accepting even the most benign appearing gun control measures. At each stage, the government either restricted access to firearms or prohibited and confiscated arbitrary types of ordinary firearms. In Canada, registration has been shown to mean eventual confiscation. As well, police search powers have been increased. The expansion of the states search and seizure powers should be taken very seriously by all civil libertarians concerned about the erosion of Canadians individual rights. Canadas democratic institutions may also have been damaged by the transfer of what many would consider legislative powers to both the police and cabinet under firearm legislation.​​


​​​​We also seem to be revisiting the decriminalization of marijuana:​ 
http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040721.wmarij0721/BNStory/Front/

I don't see a problem with that at all, in fact I think that it might free up some police resources to deal with more serious crime.  In today's Globe and Mail online poll, the question was: Have you used marijuana in the last 5 years?  

45% said yes, 55% said no - remember that these are news readers!  I expected fewer newsreading pot smokers.


----------



## Kane (Jul 22, 2004)

I don't think drugs should be legalized just because of a lot of people in prison. That is like people saying that there are too many people in prison for stealing instead of murdering people. A prison is for people who have committed all crimes, not just one type of crime like killing. 

And about the guns issue. Its true that there are more crimes with guns. Even though the argument for that is that once guns are banned people will find something else. It actually doesnt work that way. Because using a gun is much simpler way to kill than taking a baseball bat and beating them. Physiologically its hard to go through with killing someone slowly. With a gun its much easier, and much easier on your head in the beginning. 

However I think it is a basic human right to have weapons and self defense tools. Banning guns is like saying that more lives will be saved if we ban cars since accidents always happen and more people will be alive if there wasnt cars. Many people die everyday from car accidents all over the nation. Does it mean we have to ban cars? Same thing with guns and the murders it can produce. Anyway it's our right to bare arms, as it's one of our amendments in the constitution.

=


----------



## Phoenix44 (Jul 23, 2004)

> Should both drugs and guns be legal?


Yes. That way stoners would be armed.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jul 23, 2004)

If the concern is somehow the two being mixed (drugs and weapons)...

a) that's already occuring 

b) I'd rather face a stoner any day of the week rather than a drunk or someone whacked out on meth.


----------



## MisterMike (Jul 23, 2004)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> Guns...
> 
> Another basic human right is the right to self-defense. You can't take away this right no matter how hard you try. Well, if a criminal trys to rob you with a 7 inch combat knife and all you can carry is a 1/2 inch nail clipper because thats what legal, I am sorry, but your rights to self defense has been taken away. If the criminal can get a gun on the black market, and your not allowed to carry one, then your right to self defense no longer exists.
> 
> ...



Woohoo!

 :biggun:  :lasma:  :shooter:  :apv:  :sig:  :enfo:  :armed:  :snipe:  :rockets:  :uzi:  :ak47:  :mp5:


----------



## lvwhitebir (Jul 23, 2004)

Both guns and drugs should have some form of government control.

Drugs:
Just because we have trouble fighting it doesn't mean it should be legal.  And it's not just an issue of your own body.  People on drugs do all sorts of crazy things that affect others, such as driving.  They also do a lot of crazy things in order to get their next hit.  They also use drugs to prey on other people (eg Rohypnol).  Should that all be allowed?  Drugs also affect people later in life, well beyond last night's party.  I'd hate to wake up in 10 years to find that over half the population is nearly brain dead because we let them have or do whatever they wanted.

Guns:
Yep, bad guys get guns.  But we *can* limit that.  I do think that you should be able to get one if you meet certain criteria, so what you have to wait a week a two.  I personally hate guns, but I respect your right to own one.  I don't want to respect the rights of a veteran criminal to own one.

WhiteBirch


----------



## OULobo (Jul 23, 2004)

DeLamar.J said:
			
		

> lets discuss this article. I completely agree and would vote for Mr.Dave Duffy for president, I would even be willing to give my left nut for this guy to be president. What do all of you think??
> 
> :rtfm:
> 
> ...



I agree with the majority of what you passed along and I certainly agree with the general premise, but I don't think that the general public is in any way undermedicated, infact I would propose that we are very over medicated. Doctors hand out perscriptions for pain killers at the drop of a hat and only recently has the government even looked at the doctors as a cause. Most docs will give you codine or demerol for a head ache, because many want to promote the pharmacutical companies who want nothing more than to sell as much as possible. I also don't agree the idea the drugs on the black market promote use and sales, even with the increased drive to sell at higher prices. The possibility of criminal charges and the inflated cost are deterants as junkies can't afford to go on too many binges. The rest of the post sounds like the sound reasoning to me, and I'd buy into it.

I'm in total agreement with the whole gun issue. Viva La Revolution!!!

I personally think that a mild form of regulation on both issues is okay, like not allowing open sales of excessive weapons like RPGs or tanks and regulating drugs much like we do with alcohol. 



			
				DeLamar.J said:
			
		

> Both guns and drugs should have some form of government control.
> 
> Drugs:
> Just because we have trouble fighting it doesn't mean it should be legal. And it's not just an issue of your own body. People on drugs do all sorts of crazy things that affect others, such as driving. They also do a lot of crazy things in order to get their next hit. They also use drugs to prey on other people (eg Rohypnol). Should that all be allowed? Drugs also affect people later in life, well beyond last night's party. I'd hate to wake up in 10 years to find that over half the population is nearly brain dead because we let them have or do whatever they wanted.
> ...



All the "crazy things that people do on drugs", other crazy people do when not on drugs; violent crime, crazy driving, ect. Just because you make it illegal doesn't mean its going to stop. Law is only effective if you know it, understand it, and choose to follow it. If you put a restrictive law on the books, all you are doing is restricting the folks that choose to follow the law. Meanwhile those folks are hindered in two ways, 1) there conscience is restricting their freedom in following a law that they may or may not agree with and 2) their neibors who don't follow the law may choose to use that advantage against them. Using drugs as a weapon or a tool to prey on others is no different than using a hammer to do the same thing, but we won't outlaw hammers. Don't regulate or restrict the method, because they will find a new method; instead regulate or restrict the action. Don't make buying Rufinol illegal, instead make it illegal to give it to someone without their knowledge. As for a braindead public, welcome to Darwin's world, most sheeple are braindead already, something about the seventies. If you are stupid enough to choose addiction and not ever get help, then you pay the price for your actions. 

As to guns, there is no real limit on it now. Veteran criminals can get guns cheaper and easier than ever, and any person who is legit can't. I recently posted an article here on MT chronicalling the situation a woman here in Cleveland was in, where her daughter was murdered and the murderer was coming after the mother. He was loose, and the police found out that he downloaded directions to the mother's house and he was spotted enroute to OH. If I was this lady, I would be pretty miffed if I couldn't get a gun for my protection for a week or two. Again I see the need for limits, I just think that those limits should only apply to people that have proven they don't deserve the right to own a gun. 

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=14877


----------



## DeLamar.J (Jul 23, 2004)

Hey, cleveland. Were close. mayby we will run into each other one day.


----------



## Trent (Jul 23, 2004)

Nice discussions above.   Neither guns nor drugs were regulated until the late 40's.  The little "regulation" of automatic weapons back in 1932 was only for tax purposes.  Pay your $200 to the Dept. of Treasury and you can own a machine gun.  Anyone could walk into a pharmacy, no prescription, tell the pharmacist what their symptoms were and walk off with a cocaine solution or tincture of laudenum to ease the pain should the pharmacist deem it appropriate.  Our way of life was not in danger, and I believe we did pretty well during that period preceding the prohibitory laws that were enacted if previous life and history has any real substance. Now, the people and documentation speaks of the mid and late 40's as the halcyon days of our country-- low crime, very few drug problems.  Much like Prohibition, there wasn't a real problem with alcohol that affected society significantly as a whole until they made it illegal.  At that time congress critters were a little more genuine, and individuals had more sense of freedom and "self" resulting in the repeal of the Prohibition Amendment eliminating the violence associated with alcohol as related to society in total.

It could very well be that the only reasons there are problems with "illegal guns and drugs" is simply because they have made them illegal.  The real problems are with the individuals who harm others or others' property.  A free society does not imprison folks for the pursuit of happiness regardless of the path should in not infringe upon others' rights of existance.  A free society does not imprison folks for what they "may do" to others or the "potential" for harm.  Life is fraught with risk and the potential for harm.  Welcome to it.

What's more immoral, or "wrong?"  Smoking a joint in your home with a .38 in the closet for defense, or kicking in the door of that person, seizing all there assets, placing the entire occupancy in cuffs on the floor prone (women, children) and imprisoning the adults under threat of death because somebody had illegal drugs and guns in the home?


----------



## OULobo (Jul 23, 2004)

DeLamar.J said:
			
		

> Hey, cleveland. Were close. mayby we will run into each other one day.



PM me and we can set up a lunch or you can come check out our school.


----------



## OULobo (Jul 23, 2004)

Trent said:
			
		

> What's more immoral, or "wrong?"  Smoking a joint in your home with a .38 in the closet for defense, or kicking in the door of that person, seizing all there assets, placing the entire occupancy in cuffs on the floor prone (women, children) and imprisoning the adults under threat of death because somebody had illegal drugs and guns in the home?



Not to mention invading your privacy and confiscating your property without having to prove guilt.


----------



## Trent (Jul 23, 2004)

OULobo said:
			
		

> Not to mention invading your privacy and confiscating your property without having to prove guilt.



Well, yeah, that was part of the point as well.


----------



## DeLamar.J (Jul 23, 2004)

OULobo said:
			
		

> PM me and we can set up a lunch or you can come check out our school.


Sounds cool. I will PM you some time. You dont mind if I bring my wife do you?


----------



## Cruentus (Jul 23, 2004)

lvwhitebir said:
			
		

> Both guns and drugs should have some form of government control.
> 
> Drugs:
> Just because we have trouble fighting it doesn't mean it should be legal.  And it's not just an issue of your own body.  People on drugs do all sorts of crazy things that affect others, such as driving.  They also do a lot of crazy things in order to get their next hit.  They also use drugs to prey on other people (eg Rohypnol).  Should that all be allowed?  Drugs also affect people later in life, well beyond last night's party.  I'd hate to wake up in 10 years to find that over half the population is nearly brain dead because we let them have or do whatever they wanted.



Sure... :iws:  :bs1:  :bs1: Bullstuff, Bullstuff, oh...and more bullstuff.

If drugs were legal tomorrow, you wouldn't have anymore addicts a year from now, or 5 years from now, then you we do today. People who are going to do drugs are going to do them regardless of the laws, and people who don't do them aren't going to start just because it is legal. These "crazy" people who would do anything to get their next fix are going to be the same whether it is legal or not. People who are going to use drugs to "prey" on others will do so regardless of the laws. You can throw people in jail for stealing or hurting someone to get drugs. You can throw people in jail if they use drugs to prey on someone else. You seperate the victimless crime drug users and experimentors from the real criminals by making drugs legal.

Also, you can regulate crimes where there are actualy victims involved. You can regulate neglegence if someone is endangering someone else (like driving under the influence). We should not be regulating what someone puts into their own bodies.

If Drugs were legal, then there wouldn't be a black market out there selling bad s**t that kills people. Manufacterers would be required to disclose what is in their product, and the damages it could cause. Plus if it was legal today, no more people would be "users" then if it stayed illegal, so to say that half the population will wake up in 10 years with brain damage is pure BUUUULLLLLLSHHHHHSSSTUUUUFFFFF!   



> Guns:
> Yep, bad guys get guns.  But we *can* limit that.  I do think that you should be able to get one if you meet certain criteria, so what you have to wait a week a two.  I personally hate guns, but I respect your right to own one.  I don't want to respect the rights of a veteran criminal to own one.
> 
> WhiteBirch



I think that making it illegal for violent criminals to own firearms is a fine thing. However, I agree that the rest of the population should be able to own what they want.  :ultracool


----------



## Flatlander (Jul 23, 2004)

From page 94 of the 9/11 Commission Report:




> Although the FBIs counterterrorism budget tripled during the mid-1990s, FBI counterterrorism spending remained fairly constant between fiscal years 1998 and 2001. *In 2000, there were still twice as many agents devoted to drug enforcement as to counterterrorism*.



​From page 97:​​


> The Justice Department is much more than the FBI. It also has a U.S.Marshals Service, almost 4,000 strong on 9/11 and especially expert in tracking fugitives, with much local police knowledge.*The departments Drug Enforcement Administration had, as of 2001, more than 4,500 agents*.​
> ​


​


----------



## Seig (Jul 23, 2004)

Kane said:
			
		

> Even though the argument for that is that once guns are banned people will find something else. It actually doesnt work that way. Because using a gun is much simpler way to kill than taking a baseball bat and beating them. Physiologically its hard to go through with killing someone slowly. With a gun its much easier, and much easier on your head in the beginning.


I agree with most of what you wrote, except what I quoted. Look at Australia, they have now banned swords......


----------



## KenpoTex (Jul 24, 2004)

lvwhitebir said:
			
		

> Guns: Yep, bad guys get guns.  But we *can* limit that.


 No we can't...that is, unless we take the bad guys off the street permanently (harsher penalties anyone?)


			
				lvwhitebir said:
			
		

> I do think that you should be able to get one if you meet certain criteria, so what you have to wait a week a two.  I personally hate guns, but I respect your right to own one.


 Why should you be required to wait "a week or two?"  Waiting periods have never been linked to any measurable decrease in crime.  I can even say with confidence that they have been responsible for the deaths of innocent people because a person had to wait for "a week or two" before getting a weapon with which to protect themselves (There have been documented cases but I don't feel like digging right now).  And don't try to say "just call the cops," meaning no disrespect whatsoever to any member of a LE agency, they ain't gonna be there 24/7 (and they're not required to protect you anyway but that's another discussion)



			
				lvwhitebir said:
			
		

> I don't want to respect the rights of a veteran criminal to own one. WhiteBirch


 ???  since when do veteran criminals have any right to own firearms?  It is illegal for convicted felons, and people dishonorably discharged from the military etc. to even _attempt_ to obtain a weapon. 




			
				Kane said:
			
		

> Even though the argument for that is that once guns are banned people will find something else. It actually doesnt work that way. Because using a gun is much simpler way to kill than taking a baseball bat and beating them. Physiologically its hard to go through with killing someone slowly. With a gun its much easier, and much easier on your head in the beginning.


 Like Seig said, Australia just banned swords (you have to have a license and keep it/them locked in a safe).  England is even worse, if you are caught with anything that could be used as a weapon you're in trouble, and forget actually defending yourself.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jul 24, 2004)

I think its pretty funny that as a "law abiding citizen" I had to wait 3 days to purchase a handgun, but had I chosen to do so, I could have purchased one illegally in my neighborhood for about half what I paid for mine, and gotten it in 20 minutes.  

Sorry, but I'm not convinced waiting periods deter criminals in the least.

And When I purchased my shotgun, it was a 24 hour wait for a shotgun, or a 3 day wait for a pistol grip shotgun.  But I could buy the shotgun and a pistol grip together, as separate items, and pick it up in 24 hours, and screw the pistol grip on in about 10 minutes. (probably less, but I had trouble finding a screwdriver)  So why the 3 day wait for a pistol grip shotgun? Stupid stupid laws.   

Our gun control laws are stupid paranoia at best... ANYONE with an IQ over 50 should know you CANNOT stop criminals from obtaining guns by making them difficult to obtain legaly.  By the very definition of "CRIMINAL" it should be obvious that they don't CARE if the law says they can or cannot have one.


----------



## OULobo (Jul 24, 2004)

DeLamar.J said:
			
		

> Sounds cool. I will PM you some time. You dont mind if I bring my wife do you?



Fine by me


----------



## deadhand31 (Jul 27, 2004)

lvwhitebir said:
			
		

> Guns:
> Yep, bad guys get guns.  But we *can* limit that.  I do think that you should be able to get one if you meet certain criteria, so what you have to wait a week a two.  I personally hate guns, but I respect your right to own one.  I don't want to respect the rights of a veteran criminal to own one.
> 
> WhiteBirch



Well, that's already been accomplished in the Brady Bill. For a criminal to even attempt to purchase a gun causes them to serve a mandatory sentence in a federal pound-me-in-@55-prison of no less than 2 years. Sad thing is, gun crime is greater than it was when we didn't have government control. When my dad was a kid back in the 50s, he bought handguns through the mail. No background checks. No waiting period. No government control. Funny, isn't it?

The main reason for gun violence is culture. If you really study the numbers, the majority of gun crimes happen in inner cities. These tend to be the poorest policed, and the most dangerous places to live. It's where you'll see a lot of crack babies, teen pregnancies, drug use, and crime. The answer to gun violence is not by removing a tool, it's by instituting social reform. But no, it's too politically incorrect to say what needs to be done, so nobody says it. 

As for drugs, well, I would say if tobacco is legal, then marijauna should be legal. Nothing harder than that, though. Marijauna is relatively harmless. It's when people start using ecstasy, lsd, heroin, crack, etc that they really screw themselves over. Legalizing harder drugs would seem to be voting more people dead, in my view.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jul 27, 2004)

> When my dad was a kid back in the 50s, he bought handguns through the mail. No background checks. No waiting period. No government control. Funny, isn't it?
> 
> The main reason for gun violence is culture. If you really study the numbers, the majority of gun crimes happen in inner cities. These tend to be the poorest policed, and the most dangerous places to live. It's where you'll see a lot of crack babies, teen pregnancies, drug use, and crime. The answer to gun violence is not by removing a tool, it's by instituting social reform. But no, it's too politically incorrect to say what needs to be done, so nobody says it.


It is funny (strange, not ha ha), but it's not a causal relationship.  As you go on to say, it's about the culture.  The 1950's were a different time.  

I would agree that social reform is necessary, I'm wondering why that's politically incorrect - unless you are referring to some sort of novel eugenics movement, in which case I'd shoot that right down (ha ha, oh the puns).  I don't think crack babies cause people to use guns in violent crime, nor do teen pregnancies (which have dropped dramatically in the last several decades in the USA - I believe there were more teen pregnancies in the 50's and 60's, although I will have to check my stats).  We *do* need social reform, but I'm not sure what kind you are referring to.

If people can get guns illegally if they want, they can get illegal drugs if they want too - sometimes "cut" with substances worse than the drug.  If that's the argument for widening gun ownership, I think the same holds true for drug use.  Drugs can do terrible things to people who take them.  Guns can do terrible things to anyone targeted.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jul 27, 2004)

Kane said:
			
		

> I don't think drugs should be legalized just because of a lot of people in prison. That is like people saying that there are too many people in prison for stealing instead of murdering people. A prison is for people who have committed all crimes, not just one type of crime like killing.




That's the point.  Prisons should be for people who commit crimes against the person or against property.  Going to jail for a bag of pot and then getting gang raped and turned into a prison "bi**h" for your time in certainly could be classified as cruel and unusual.  It just doesn't make sense.

Where have we come in a society where we'd put a man in jail for 25 years for selling a bag of pot, and his cell mate is doing eight years for offing some guy with a gun?

Regards,


Steve


----------



## OULobo (Jul 28, 2004)

deadhand31 said:
			
		

> Well, that's already been accomplished in the Brady Bill. For a criminal to even attempt to purchase a gun causes them to serve a mandatory sentence in a federal pound-me-in-@55-prison of no less than 2 years.



The Brady Bill is crap. All it does is limit legal citizens from getting weapons they have the constitutional right to own. The bill limits felons from buying guns legally, which most would never do anyway, considering they can get guns cheaper and easier on the street. All felons have already been to "pound-me-in-@55-prison" and come out stronger, more violent and with less of an issue returning. Consequently, most state prisons are tougher than federal ones, due to looser regulations. The Brady Bill is a "warm hug" law signed in to make housewives and suburbanites sleep better. It has little or no effect on criminals with the exception of limiting the amount of available "assault weapons".


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jul 28, 2004)

OK, so if the Brady Bill is "crap", how DO we limit criminals from getting guns?  I'd like to hear any possible solution other than "there's no way".


----------



## OULobo (Jul 28, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> OK, so if the Brady Bill is "crap", how DO we limit criminals from getting guns?  I'd like to hear any possible solution other than "there's no way".



You can't limit the availability of guns, there are just too many and there is just too much availability. Currently we are focusing on the method, not the motivation. If you take away a method, they will find a new one; take away their guns and they will use knives; take away their ability to legally buy guns, they will buy them illegally. It even reflects in the over-litigous court systems of today, in how we punish legal enablers more than criminals. It's sad that many think it is okay to sue a legal manufacturer and not the person who took the criminal action; the gun manufacturer, not the criminal (because the criminal has no money to win [because he was poor enough or addicted enough to rob for it]). 

The solution lies, as stated before by yourself and HHJH, in changing the culture of fear and predation in America. I know that I'm opening up a heated discussion, but here comes the storm, I first would suggest allowing full ownership and carrying rights to everyone, but felons. This levels the playing field and discourages violent crime. I would secondly suggest social programs in high crime/extremely low income areas that focus on replacing the motivations of violent crime, like gangs, poverty and addiction. This not only reduces crime, but cures other social ills also. Thirdly I would crack down even harder on how prisons are run and what goes on in them. Too many people go in there light and come out hardcore. If it's not a gladiator school then we won't get cons coming out like they just graduated a criminal finishing school. As with most complicated problems there is no one solution, but many combinations of many solutions.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jul 28, 2004)

> The solution lies, as stated before by yourself and HHJH, in changing the culture of fear and predation in America. I know that I'm opening up a heated discussion, but here comes the storm, I first would suggest allowing full ownership and carrying rights to everyone, but felons. This levels the playing field and discourages violent crime. I would secondly suggest social programs in high crime/extremely low income areas that focus on replacing the motivations of violent crime, like gangs, poverty and addiction. This not only reduces crime, but cures other social ills also. Thirdly I would crack down even harder on how prisons are run and what goes on in them. Too many people go in there light and come out hardcore. If it's not a gladiator school then we won't get cons coming out like they just graduated a criminal finishing school. As with most complicated problems there is no one solution, but many combinations of many solutions.


Sounds good to me - you have my vote.    I like your third point, which isn't often discussed, I think - the way prisons are run, the assumption that you will get seriously messed with (raped, etc) in prison - how is that creating people we want released back into society?

Good points.


----------



## OULobo (Jul 28, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> Sounds good to me - you have my vote.    I like your third point, which isn't often discussed, I think - the way prisons are run, the assumption that you will get seriously messed with (raped, etc) in prison - how is that creating people we want released back into society?
> 
> Good points.



I always thought about running for office, but I got so many skeletons in my closet that they should call it a graveyard, and I'm only 26, plus I don't even want to think about what a spin doctor could do with my internet tracks. 
 :angel:


----------



## Flatlander (Jul 28, 2004)

Some other things that need to be adressed are:

a) education - I think that by allowing all non-criminals to carry, it needs to be balanced with the assurance that those who have guns aren't making it easy for those that don't to steal them.  These things need to be secure.

b) stricter border controls - if illegal guns aren't coming in, they can't be bought.

c) stricter control of legal distribution - there need be more checks in place to be certain the vendors of weapons are following the rules.

d) extreme punishment - now, this applies more to Canada than the US.  In Canada, the sentences being handed down to violent criminals are farcical.  They are neither an opportunity for rehabilitation nor a deterrent.  However, if you were staring down a possibility of life in prison w/o parole, that may give you cause to pause and think.


----------



## KenpoTex (Jul 29, 2004)

The last several posters (flatlander, fiesty, OULobo) have all made some good points.  a couple of thoughts...

1) The original brady-bill was a worthless piece of legislation that served to do nothing other than restrict the rights of law abiding citizens.  it was so bad that an Arizona Sheriff by the name of Richard Mack successfully sued the U.S. Government becuase it would have been unconstitutional to require him to enforce it.  He won.  In 1997 the Supreme Court ruled that the waiting periods were illegal.  This is when we got the NICS system (for more on this check out the thread in the firearms room)

2) The "Assault Weapons" Ban was a worthless piece of legislation because it not only targeted a class of weapons that are rarely used in violent crime (less than 4%), it has had no measureable effect on crime.  Even the gun-grabbers admitt this yet they're still trying to get it made permanent. 

3) *Guns don't cause crime!!!*  When guns are banned and the rights of the law-abiding citizens restricted, crime increases.  Take a look at England. 





			
				OULobo said:
			
		

> You can't limit the availability of guns, there are just too many and there is just too much availability. Currently we are focusing on the method, not the motivation. If you take away a method, they will find a new one; take away their guns and they will use knives; take away their ability to legally buy guns, they will buy them illegally. It even reflects in the over-litigous court systems of today, in how we punish legal enablers more than criminals. It's sad that many think it is okay to sue a legal manufacturer and not the person who took the criminal action; the gun manufacturer, not the criminal (because the criminal has no money to win [because he was poor enough or addicted enough to rob for it]).


  Well Said!


Okay, I'm done ranting about the gun thing.

I personally think that the biggest thing we (the country) could do to reduce crime would be to implement reforms in the correctional system.  What I mean by this is not allowing rapists, murderers, and other violent criminals to walk free after serving only a few years of their sentances (in other words, we need harsher penalties and we need to use them!).  Since most violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders, not letting them back out to repeat their crimes sounds like a good start.  I don't believe in rehabilitation for these types of criminals because it doesn't work.  If we're going to spend time rehabilitating anyone it needs to be done the first time some juvenile delinquent gets busted for shoplifting, not 5 years later when he has progressed to armed robbery and/or murder.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jul 29, 2004)

kenpotex said:
			
		

> 2) The "Assault Weapons" Ban was a worthless piece of legislation because it not only targeted a class of weapons that are rarely used in violent crime (less than 4%), it has had no measureable effect on crime.  Even the gun-grabbers admitt this yet they're still trying to get it made permanent.
> 
> 
> 
> Since most violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders, not letting them back out to repeat their crimes sounds like a good start.  I don't believe in rehabilitation for these types of criminals because it doesn't work.  If we're going to spend time rehabilitating anyone it needs to be done the first time some juvenile delinquent gets busted for shoplifting, not 5 years later when he has progressed to armed robbery and/or murder.




Its interesting to note that there was some liberal discontent with the AW ban.  Mike Wallace took Diane Feinstein to task for what liberals perceived to be an emasculated bill.  Feinstein kept saying..."I'll have to get back to you on that."  Makes one wonder if she read the bill.  She clearly didn't know anything about guns.

The ban outlawed cosmetic appearances...things like bayonet lugs (to stop those mass bayonettings on school grounds) and did't really accomplish its intent. 

As far as recividism...I'm not sure some of the hard cases can't be rehabilitated.  Until we find a way that is effective, I agree that violent criminals need to be put away for a long time.  


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Flatlander (Jul 29, 2004)

kenpotex said:
			
		

> I personally think that the biggest thing we (the country) could do to reduce crime would be to implement reforms in the correctional system. What I mean by this is not allowing rapists, murderers, and other violent criminals to walk free after serving only a few years of their sentances (in other words, we need harsher penalties and we need to use them!). Since most violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders, not letting them back out to repeat their crimes sounds like a good start. I don't believe in rehabilitation for these types of criminals because it doesn't work. If we're going to spend time rehabilitating anyone it needs to be done the first time some juvenile delinquent gets busted for shoplifting, not 5 years later when he has progressed to armed robbery and/or murder.


Hear hear!


----------



## Cryozombie (Jul 30, 2004)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> The ban outlawed cosmetic appearances...things like bayonet lugs (to stop those mass bayonettings on school grounds) and did't really accomplish its intent.
> 
> Steve



I found this interesting as well... that the ban did not address the capabilities of the firearms in question, but rather how "spooky" the firearm appeared.  Cuz you know... more people are killed by the spooky look than the bullets coming out of the end.


----------



## hkg (Jul 31, 2004)

Well i strongly disagree with makin guns legal as i dont know if its because i live in Scotland but gun crime is on the increase over here as they r becomin easier to aquire so a ban for the u.s.a may seem harsh for u to understand but believe me i think it would do america a whole lot o good!


----------



## OULobo (Aug 2, 2004)

hkg said:
			
		

> Well i strongly disagree with makin guns legal as i dont know if its because i live in Scotland but gun crime is on the increase over here as they r becomin easier to aquire so a ban for the u.s.a may seem harsh for u to understand but believe me i think it would do america a whole lot o good!



But you illustrate our argument directly, by saying that despite the guns being outlawed over there, the gun crime is still on the rise. Mabey gun crime is on the rise because your guns are outlawed. 

The classic stance of the pro-gun American is that, if I'm a criminal, I'm already dedicated to breaking the law by commiting a crime. If I know that my having a gun will make said crime easier, why would I hesitate to break another law to obtain a gun. Even more so, if I know that it is illegal for you to have a gun, that means you are probably not going to have one, and I have an even better chance to commit a crime against you if I have one.

By the way, welcome to MartialTalk.com.


----------



## hkg (Aug 5, 2004)

OULobo said:
			
		

> But you illustrate our argument directly, by saying that despite the guns being outlawed over there, the gun crime is still on the rise. Mabey gun crime is on the rise because your guns are outlawed.
> 
> The classic stance of the pro-gun American is that, if I'm a criminal, I'm already dedicated to breaking the law by commiting a crime. If I know that my having a gun will make said crime easier, why would I hesitate to break another law to obtain a gun. Even more so, if I know that it is illegal for you to have a gun, that means you are probably not going to have one, and I have an even better chance to commit a crime against you if I have one.
> 
> By the way, welcome to MartialTalk.com.



Thanks for the welcome it is a very good site! Its jst i feel that if a crimanal is commited to the crime surely it makes it easier for him to commit if he/she can obtain a gun easily. Well over here guns hav always been outlawed its the punishment that has gone up due to the increase in gun crime, now dnt get me wrong here im nt blamin america direct for this but i feel alot of the gangs in britain feel they want to be like the american gangs lke they c in films etc as it looks so glamorous and they feel cool wanderin the streets bullying people and if the gun was outlawed in america then wouldnt it be better if they jst wernt around. I guess what im trying to say is what are the benefits of havin them legal?!


----------



## OULobo (Aug 5, 2004)

hkg said:
			
		

> I guess what im trying to say is what are the benefits of havin them legal?!



For one thing, it evens the playing field. While you can never trust statistics, there have been studies here that find that in the states that allowed citizens in good standing to carry concealed weapons the violent crime rate dropped. The speculative reason was that the criminals never knew who was an easy mark anymore. Secondly, but related, it adds security. People here know that they can have a gun in the house in case someone decides to invade our home with ill intent. Thirdly, it gives a rudimentary level of protection against an overpowering government, and this is exactly what the amendment in the Constitution was designed for. Finally, it allows for enjoyment of hobbies, like competition shooting, hunting and historical collecting. Why sacrifice these things so that a soccer mom in a suburb feels a warm feeling inside, because the criminal could care less if he gets the gun from an expensive retail dealer or a street blackmarket dealer for half the cost.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Aug 5, 2004)

I might be more in support of gun control legislation if it did one ounce of good to get weapons out of criminals' hands; in the end, though, the movement is a visceral reaction to gun violence that accomplishes nothing but keeping guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens.


----------



## KenpoTex (Aug 6, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> I might be more in support of gun control legislation if it did one ounce of good to get weapons out of criminals' hands; in the end, though, the movement is a visceral reaction to gun violence that accomplishes nothing but keeping guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens.


Exactly!


----------

