Who Advises Mittens ?

[byco42]

so if Ohio legalized coke you'd be cool with it ?

I would not be cool with any state legalizing cocaine; I just think that drug laws are in a state's jurisdiction and not the federal government's. I think that the states would do a better job of minimizing drug use by enforcing its own laws than the Feds can do now. I think there's enough evidence to suggest that the Feds are not very effective in this regard.

 

[Slick]

I want someone to explain to me , why any sane person would have a need for an AR 15 with 100 round clip.

 

[byco42]

You sure you're a conservative?

I never claimed to be one.

 

[Mitchrapp]

I want someone to explain to me , why any sane person would have a need for an AR 15 with 100 round clip.

Farmer?

 

[cheeno]

No. But I do I think that it should be left to the states to determine its own drug laws.

The reason I ask is that the issue of legal/regulated guns and legal/regulated drugs on many levels are essentially the same argument.

 

[Slick]

Farmer?

:lmao:

 

[cheeno]

I want someone to explain to me , why any sane person would have a need for an AR 15 with 100 round clip.

Hunt game, spell out things, or just ring in the new year.

 

[byco42]

I want someone to explain to me , why any sane person would have a need for an AR 15 with 100 round clip.

Maybe because an insane person will figure out a reason why they need one. Because a sane person won't spray a crowded area with it.

Why does a sane person need a 12-gauge shotgun? A Glock .40 caliber pistol? A .38 snub-nose? A 1911? A .45? A LeMat revolver? A blunderbuss? See above.

 

[Mitchrapp]

What's a blunderbuss?

 

[byco42]

The reason I ask is that the issue of legal/regulated guns and legal/regulated drugs on many levels are essentially the same argument.

Except there is no constitutional amendment that secures the right of the people "to keep and use mind-altering drugs" ... unless they are prescription-based, of course.

But there is that pesky 10th amendment that isn't even a footnote on the Bill of Rights anymore.

 

[byco42]

What's a blunderbuss?

Jesus, Mitch--it's called the Internet for a reason.

 

[cheeno]

Except there is no constitutional amendment that secures the right of the people "to keep and use mind-altering drugs" ... unless they are prescription-based, of course.

But there is that pesky 10th amendment that isn't even a footnote on the Bill of Rights anymore.

I said the arguments for/against are the same/similar, not the reason one is and one isn't.

 

[Mitchrapp]

Jesus, Mitch--it's called the Internet for a reason.

And you could have just told me in your otherwise useless post. Thanks.

 

[byco42]

And you could have just told me in your otherwise useless post. Thanks.

And you could have found out for yourself in the time it took for you to ask me and then complain that I'm not doing my job as your personal assistant.

 

[byco42]

I said the arguments for/against are the same/similar, not the reason one is and one isn't.

They are not in any way similar arguments. One is a constitutional right. The other is not.

 

[redandguilty]

It looks like arson trumps all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers

Edit: I haven't done any math, just skimmed. Bombs and crashing planes seems up there too.

 

[cheeno]

This is an example of argument why guns should be legal, you should recognize it.

I gotta watch where I step. No restrictions are going to keep weapons out of the hands of the very dedicated people who feel they must have them for missions like this one; no matter what country you live in. Or city: Like, for example, Chicago or D.C.

Notice how you didn't just say,"it's in the constitution". That is the reason why it is legal.

The arguments are similar:

I gotta watch where I step. No restrictions are going to keep drugs out of the hands of the very dedicated people who feel they must have them; no matter what country you live in. Or city: Like, for example, Chicago or D.C.

 

[redandguilty]

I started thinking about trying to figure out what percentage of the incidents were American and what percentage of the # of deaths were American to maybe say something about how frequent and how deadly our incidents are compared to other places, but the likelihood of smaller incidents to be reported and make this list would probably impact the results more than any actual trend it might uncover.

 

[cheeno]

Anyways here is my take:

Byco is wrong about Romney, he again is trying to play to the base, without full understanding.

I agree with Byco about prohibition (as opposed to strengthening existing regulation) of guns to a degree.

Even if you prohibited guns in the US many (law abiding and not so law abiding) people would still own and legally or illegally obtain them due to the general 'gun culture' of Americans. This is why you can't compare America to Canada or the UK because even with similar regulations, I still believe gun deaths would be higher (per capita) in the US.

In my mind prohibition in general doesn't work. One of the few times us liberals and (looney) libertatians can agree.

However MC pointed out some areas where regulations can obviously and easily be strengthened.

 

[byco42]

This is an example of argument why guns should be legal, you should recognize it.



Notice how you didn't just say,"it's in the constitution". That is the reason why it is legal.

The arguments are similar:

All you have shown there is that law breakers will break the law. When they are caught; they pay the consequences. Passing drug laws does not ban drugs from existence; they punish the people who make, sell and use them.

Banning guns will not eliminate them from existence, either, and that's the discriminating factor, and why the two issues are not the same argument. There are legislators who want to ban guns and they think it's the solution to the problem and that it is possible. No legislator would suggest that it's possible to ban drugs.