Enlightening FBI Gun statistics from our good friends at JPFO

[Ingomike]

And there is simply NO "right" to be an addict. No right to be a burden upon society and social services. It was expected that people have character, integrity, and act ethically. We`ve lost that in the culture today, and the more lawless and deviate the populous are, the more laws are required in order to KEEP order.


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

To your first point: Laws against addiction are as useless as laws against cancer, addiction is baked into some people.

To your second: society chose to allow them to become their burden.

 

[gregr]

To your first point: Laws against addiction are as useless as laws against cancer, addiction is baked into some people.

To your second: society chose to allow them to become their burden.

Oh good grief. There are no laws against addiction, but there have to be laws that deal with the natural outcome of the addicts lifestyle. Crime and grift aren`t to be tolerated, coddled, nor embraced. The slovenly lifestyles are sad enough, but when you have to deal with the crime necessary to feed one`s addiction, on top of watching a human being waste away, that`s where it has to be dealt with.

 

[KLB]

Oh good grief. There are no laws against addiction, but there have to be laws that deal with the natural outcome of the addicts lifestyle. Crime and grift aren`t to be tolerated, coddled, nor embraced. The slovenly lifestyles are sad enough, but when you have to deal with the crime necessary to feed one`s addiction, on top of watching a human being waste away, that`s where it has to be dealt with.

You sound like the people that campaigned for prohibition of alcohol. It's funny how you can't see the similarities between the two.

Check out this quote from back then

Upon establishment of the Noble Experiment in 1920, evangelist Billy Sunday staged a mock funeral for alcoholic beverages. He extolled on the benefits of Prohibition. “The rein of tears is over,” he asserted. “The slums will soon be only a memory. We will turn our prisons into factories and our jails into storehouses and corncribs.”2 Alcohol was to be banned. Since it was the cause of most, if not all, crime, some communities sold their jails.3

 

[gregr]

You sound like the people that campaigned for prohibition of alcohol. It's funny how you can't see the similarities between the two.

Check out this quote from back then

Yeah, we`re done here. We`ll just agree to disagree and you can hang onto your shrill hysterical rants.

 

[KLB]

Yeah, we`re done here. We`ll just agree to disagree and you can hang onto your shrill hysterical rants.

I'm neither hysterical nor ranting.

 

[gregr]

I'm neither hysterical nor ranting.

Ok, last post I`ll make here, but calling harsher charges for anyone using a firearm's to commit a crime something like an attack on the Second Amendment? Yes sir, that qualifies as both hysterical AND a rant.

I`m finished here, I want to dialogue with an adult.

 

[KLB]

Ok, last post I`ll make here, but calling harsher charges for anyone using a firearm's to commit a crime something like an attack on the Second Amendment? Yes sir, that qualifies as both hysterical AND a rant.

I`m finished here, I want to dialogue with an adult.

 

[two70]

I'm usually not a stickler for threads sticking closely to the subject as I believe that often unnecessarily limits conversation but it sure would be nice if a thread on crime/gun statistics in the Legislation of the 2nd Amendment sub-forum would not be so focused on stoner gratification.

 

[Ingomike]

I'm usually not a stickler for threads sticking closely to the subject as I believe that often unnecessarily limits conversation but it sure would be nice if a thread on crime/gun statistics in the Legislation of the 2nd Amendment sub-forum would not be so focused on stoner gratification.

But you just cannot help yourself from commenting on the very sub-topic you are complaining about. LOL

"Stoner gratification" if you lack ability to discuss issues, rather than call names, stick to other parts of the forum...

 

[two70]

But you just cannot help yourself from commenting on the very sub-topic you are complaining about. LOL

"Stoner gratification" if you lack ability to discuss issues, rather than call names, stick to other parts of the forum...

Yes, how dare I comment that even though I normally don't mind a thread going off topic, this one was way off topic and the new topic would be better elsewhere? Shame on me thinking gun threads should be about guns instead of pot.

I've read a lot of your posts and you have a lot valuable insights to contribute but you seem to be wound awfully tight at times. If you want to continue this conversation I suggest you either start a more appropriate thread or PM me. That seems a lot more reasonable (not to mention likely) than telling me to stick to other parts of the forum.

 

[JCSR]

Chicago to Dispatch Mental Health Experts on 911 Calls Instead of Cops​

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...-health-experts-on-911-calls-instead-of-cops/

 

[KG1]

Chicago to Dispatch Mental Health Experts on 911 Calls Instead of Cops​

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...-health-experts-on-911-calls-instead-of-cops/

Mental Heath experts should be dispatched to the mayor’s office.

 

[Ingomike]

Yes, how dare I comment that even though I normally don't mind a thread going off topic, this one was way off topic and the new topic would be better elsewhere? Shame on me thinking gun threads should be about guns instead of pot.

I've read a lot of your posts and you have a lot valuable insights to contribute but you seem to be wound awfully tight at times. If you want to continue this conversation I suggest you either start a more appropriate thread or PM me. That seems a lot more reasonable (not to mention likely) than telling me to stick to other parts of the forum.

Just pointing out that after complaining about thread derailleur, you then made a derisive comment about those with a different opinion than you on the "off topic".

I also contend the discussion was not off topic as it began as an offshoot of the massive number of gang related stats the OP posted and their funding mechanism, drugs.

 

[KLB]

Chicago to Dispatch Mental Health Experts on 911 Calls Instead of Cops​

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...-health-experts-on-911-calls-instead-of-cops/

Police are not mental health professionals nor are they counselors. Combined with the fact that they are losing officers at a fast rate, this could be a good thing in a lot of circumstances.

I just hope that none of these people get hurt because they are put into a dangerous position.

 

[Lex Concord]

Just my opinion, but I believe it`s insane to even entertain the notion of making illicit drugs legal. As bad as the druggies are now, at least a third of the country will be walking zombies if it`s legal for them to use. And just because drugs would be legal, it doesn`t mean the low-lifes wouldn`t still have to rob, murder, and steal to fund their addictions. Likely MORE so, because if legalized, and of course taxed, they`ll be even MORE expensive.

So, your position is basically "things should be illegal because someone might do a bad thing"... sounds familiar.

 

[Lex Concord]

Now law and order is "Marxist"?

No, but control of the individual for the good of the many most certainly is.

 

[Lex Concord]

One must have an intellectual and realistic understanding of what exactly individual rights are and encompass...individual rights do NOT mean anything goes. Law and order that must be in place.

No one is arguing for "anything goes". This is a straw man you have woven.

The "libertarian" argument is "an individual has a right to do what he/she likes so long as it doesn't violate the rights of others".

Can drug abuse harm families? Impact productivity on the job? Absolutely.

Can alcohol abuse result in the same? Of course it can, yet I don't see you arguing for the re-institution of alcohol prohibition.

If a drug addict steals or harms someone when high, he has committed a crime against property or person (respectively) that was a crime before the drugs were illegal, will be a crime if drugs are once again legal, and is a crime whether or not he is high.

The same is true of alcohol.

There is no difference in the moral or economic dangers of either, one is just socially acceptable, and the other is not due to years of propaganda and conditioning.

 

[gregr]

So, your position is basically "things should be illegal because someone might do a bad thing"... sounds familiar.

 

[gregr]

No, but control of the individual for the good of the many most certainly is.

 

[gregr]

No one is arguing for "anything goes". This is a straw man you have woven.

The "libertarian" argument is "an individual has a right to do what he/she likes so long as it doesn't violate the rights of others".

Can drug abuse harm families? Impact productivity on the job? Absolutely.

Can alcohol abuse result in the same? Of course it can, yet I don't see you arguing for the re-institution of alcohol prohibition.

If a drug addict steals or harms someone when high, he has committed a crime against property or person (respectively) that was a crime before the drugs were illegal, will be a crime if drugs are once again legal, and is a crime whether or not he is high.

The same is true of alcohol.

There is no difference in the moral or economic dangers of either, one is just socially acceptable, and the other is not due to years of propaganda and conditioning.

I reject out of hand the core of libertarianism. It trusts that most will have a moral compass, and that`s just not rooted in reality. The reason for laws is that there have to be restraints on conduct to benefit society, because in the libertarian, yes, pretty much anything DOES go. We`ll just sharply disagree.