Just watch the repercussions of the Tucson shooting

[Ralph]

I never said legalize driving under the influence of them.

Want to compare DUI rates with and without prohibition? I'd bet they will be statistically equivalent.

I can't quite figure out how you are logical enough to agree that guns should be legal and those who abuse them are the problem and should be held responsible for their actions, and will continue to own guns whether they are legal or not, but somehow can't understand that making drugs legal and driving while under the influence of them illegal somehow is the same thing. We know prohibition simply does not work, it's been tried and failed on alcohol and they're currently trying it and failing with guns, why are drugs any different?

Also, as long as people on drugs don't harm others, it's simply not your business if they want to do them. The second they cause harm to someone else, they lose those rights. Live and let live, stop trying to legislate the behavior of others unless it causes harm to another. This is my viewpoint on guns, alcohol, drugs other than alcohol, health insurance, and marriage... if people left each other the hell alone and stopped getting in their business we'd get along an awful lot better.

Sadly the Democrats are all about messing with my guns and health insurance, the Republicans are all about getting in my business concerning alcohol, drugs, and marriage... and they both love to get their grubby mitts in my wallet.

Hear, hear.

 

[XJEEPER]

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

John Adams

Our Founders knew that the Constitutional Republic they gave us could not survive corruption and an immoral society. It takes a moral society to live under the tree of liberty and freedom that our Founders protected in our form of government. If our politicians are corrupt, they are only a reflection of us. If our Corporations are corrupt, they are only a reflection of us. When enough of us make a concerted effort to live our lives with responsibility and in adherence to fundamental moral precepts, we will have the society we crave and our representatives in government will reflect who we are.

 

[Ralph]

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

John Adams

Our Founders knew that the Constitutional Republic they gave us could not survive corruption and an immoral society. It takes a moral society to live under the tree of liberty and freedom that our Founders protected in our form of government. If our politicians are corrupt, they are only a reflection of us. If our Corporations are corrupt, they are only a reflection of us. When enough of us make a concerted effort to live our lives with responsibility and in adherence to fundamental moral precepts, we will have the society we crave and our representatives in government will reflect who we are.

What's your point?

 

[kastein]

his point is *thumps bible*.

So where in the constitution does it mention alcohol and drugs as something the government has any right to control? Where does it state the government has any right to control healthcare? Where does it state that marriage is something the government has any right to control? I'm fairly certain most people here already know about the second amendment, so I'm not bothering to ask about that one.

Just curious how you can justify to yourself increased government intrusion into personal affairs when it comes to stuff that's against your belief system, while you get all up in arms about it when the government tries to control guns or healthcare. Once upon a time this was the land of the free, not the land of the people who try to legislate everyone else's behavior to be like theirs.

 

[XJEEPER]

his point is *thumps bible*

So where in the constitution does it mention alcohol and drugs as something the government has any right to control? Where does it state the government has any right to control healthcare? Where does it state that marriage is something the government has any right to control? I'm fairly certain most people here already know about the second amendment, so I'm not bothering to ask about that one.

Just curious how you can justify to yourself increased government intrusion into personal affairs when it comes to stuff that's against your belief system, while you get all up in arms about it when the government tries to control guns or healthcare. Once upon a time this was the land of the free, not the land of the people who try to legislate everyone else's behavior to be like theirs.

You are proving the point, which is very simple. The US Constitution was created to protect our God-given rights and freedoms, it was created for men to rule themselves in a moral society.

America is an experiment that has never been tried before in the history of the Earth. There is no other county like us.

If you remove morals, ignore the 10 Commandments, if you remove personal responsibility and accountably for ones actions.......well, here we are in 2011.

 

[kastein]

How do you explain the separation of church and state then?



How does what people do in their bedrooms have any bearing on our government?

When does the big black and red text and socialism start?

 

[Ralph]

You are proving the point, which is very simple. The US Constitution was created to protect our God-given rights and freedoms, it was created for men to rule themselves in a moral society.

America is an experiment that has never been tried before in the history of the Earth. There is no other county like us.

If you remove morals, ignore the 10 Commandments, if you remove personal responsibility and accountably for ones actions.......well, here we are in 2011.

Given that you have to have some kind of moral compass in order to be a good citizen. There will always be people who are weak. Whether drugs or alcohol is legal or not makes no difference. They will use regardless. The difference is in how we as a society deal with those people. Do you try to help them become good citizens or lock them up an ensure that they will never be good citizens. Do you accept that there will always be people that use and work with that issue or do you compound the problem by creating a black market of criminal enterprise that cost billions to fight. A fight that we cannot win as a free society. This fight is costing us our civil liberties. Over the course of time, our liberties are being slowly eroded away in the interest of protecting us from ourselves.

 

[XJEEPER]

How do you explain the separation of church and state then?



How does what people do in their bedrooms have any bearing on our government?

When does the big black and red text and socialism start?

You want to play strawman or go back and and address your previous comments?

This all started from your statements that legalizing drugs will reduce crime. I clearly understand the theory, if there is some historical facts to back this up, I'd love to see it.

DUI is relative to any substance that alters your ability to safely operate a motor vehicle. My point was and is, there are those within the US Government who look for any and every opportunity to regulate the activity of ALL US Citizens, based on the choices and actions of a few.

Instead of holding people accountable for their actions, new laws are created which further regulate and restrict individual freedoms (remember the thread topic?) and the government always seems to use these regulations as a way to shave another % from our paychecks.

Tolerance of immoral behavior creates acceptance........individual accountability is key to improve society as a whole. The rising tide lifts all boats.

Oppressive governments and leaders thrive on societal moral decay, promoting it to justify their personal actions for more power and control.

 

[Jeepman401]

This all started from your statements that legalizing drugs will reduce crime. I clearly understand the theory, if there is some historical facts to back this up, I'd love to see it.

Simple, you stop prosecuting the guy who has a pot plant, and more people will grow their own. That lowers the business of the drug cartels, reducing crime. The violent crime is largely related to the distribution network. Create a legal distribution network, and that crime goes down. You need an example? look at when prohibition was repealed.

DUI is relative to any substance that alters your ability to safely operate a motor vehicle. My point was and is, there are those within the US Government who look for any and every opportunity to regulate the activity of ALL US Citizens, based on the choices and actions of a few.

ok, what is your position exactly? because now you are arguing for legalization.

Instead of holding people accountable for their actions, new laws are created which further regulate and restrict individual freedoms (remember the thread topic?) and the government always seems to use these regulations as a way to shave another % from our paychecks.

because the governments failing war on drugs costs us nothing.

Tolerance of immoral behavior creates acceptance........individual accountability is key to improve society as a whole. The rising tide lifts all boats.

I agree, but let it be a moral decision, not a government decision.

Oppressive governments and leaders thrive on societal moral decay, promoting it to justify their personal actions for more power and control.

Great point. Tougher laws on drugs creates the need for larger criminal organizations to supply the demand. Larger organizations run into the law more often, usually creating violence. In order to stay on the winning side, criminals arm themselves better, creating even more violence. The growing shooting war gains media attention, and as a result of it all, we end up with the same exact drug use, people dead and injured, and the government gets great excuses to back their anti gun laws. Who wins?



A good article
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20031399-503544.html

 

[urban yan]

If you remove morals, ignore the 10 Commandments, if you remove personal responsibility and accountably for ones actions.......well, here we are in 2011.

That's a rather arrogant comment. Are you implying other countries or faiths have no moral compass? I didn't realize morality was mutually exclusive to American Christians. Based on your comments, it sounds like everyone in Amsterdam's going to hell.

Simple, you stop prosecuting the guy who has a pot plant, and more people will grow their own. That lowers the business of the drug cartels, reducing crime. The violent crime is largely related to the distribution network. Create a legal distribution network, and that crime goes down. You need an example? look at when prohibition was repealed.

I agree.... in fact, it sounds like a step towards a reduction in gun crimes.
Personally, I think soft drugs should be legalized, taxed, and controlled much like lotto tickets, smokes or booze.

 

[Jeepman401]

From http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2011/02/14/high-capacity-ammo-clips-for-guns-save-lives
A good article overall, but this comment was a great one

Force vs. Persuasion, edited for length

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason or force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason because I have a way to negate your employment of force.
The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220 pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats.
The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job.
That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.
People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury.
This argument is fallacious in several ways.
Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.
People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst.
The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker.
If both are armed, the field is level.
The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter.
It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.
I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid.
It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force.
It removes force from the equation... and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)
​

 

[87manche]

T
I agree.... in fact, it sounds like a step towards a reduction in gun crimes.
Personally, I think soft drugs should be legalized, taxed, and controlled much like lotto tickets, smokes or booze.

F me I agree with the liberal Canadian.

I think that alcohol is far more damaging to society that pot would ever be. It's not like you ever see an angry pot head beating his wife and children up, all that guy wants to do is sit on the couch and eat some ho ho's.

I feel that the "war on drugs" is a terrible fleecing of the taxpayers, and is used to funnel our money to third world shithole governments so that we may control them.

 

[kastein]

I also agree, but apparently legalization would result in rampant immoral behavior and would fly in the face of our country's christian values

The war on drugs and the war on poverty have one thing in common... we have gotten a lot of drugs and poverty for our money.

 

[87manche]

I also agree, but apparently legalization would result in rampant immoral behavior and would fly in the face of our country's christian values

The war on drugs and the war on poverty have one thing in common... we have gotten a lot of drugs and poverty for our money.

Don't forget the bureaucracy, we've gotten a lot of that for our money as well.

 

[RichP]

Don't forget the bureaucracy, we've gotten a lot of that for our money as well.

Yup, the US Government has been the number one biggest single employer for about 8 months now. They surpassed the india rail company last summer.