NationStates Jolt Archive

This is something which i stumbled upon, normally people wouldnt take any notice of this 'anomaly' but i realised...

If Guns (projectile weapons designed to kill or seriously injure 'OTHER PEOPLE') are legal then how can we justify the fact that Drugs (Recreational/mind altering substances which arguably harm only the user) are not only illegal but punishable by mandatory prison sentances just for possesion...

The problem i see with this is it is an issue of responsability, is the question of responsability not the reason drugs are illegal, because people cannot be trusted/dont know what is good for them yet at the same time they can be trusted with lethal weapons?

Im sure a lot of people here are pro legalisation but i want to focus on this contradiction, does the fact that guns are legal (in america) de-legitimise the fact that drugs are not?

How can you possibly justify classifying drugs, without giving reasons which can also be applied to guns (and therefore being a contradiction in the law)

Because the ones with the guns oppose legalized drugs ^_^

Because the ones with the guns oppose legalized drugs ^_^

:D

Both should be legal.

Legalize both.

does the fact that guns are legal (in america) de-legitimise the fact that drugs are not?
not all
speaking purely from the constitutional standpoint. the individual right to keep and bear arms was viewed as an undeniable RIGHT by our nations founders right along side the right to have freedom of speech, religion etc...

one does not for example have a "right" to drive a car. it is a privalige(SP?)
that can legally be revoked by the government.


just as one does not have a legal "right" to use certain controlled substances.

the simple harm factor of firearms or drugs does not put them in the same catagory. you are discussing apples and oranges.

lets look at a few examples
.firearms in and of themselves cannot harm you. it takes a person loading, chambering aiming and firing the weapon to cause harm. drugs on the other hand simply by ingestion(and sometimes in the manufacture in the case of methamphetamines) cause physical harm

.the effect
you claim firearms affect many people but drugs only affect the user.
this is pattently not true. crimes in the US commited involving firearms make up just over a measly 1%(in 2002, 353,880 victims of serious violent crimes (rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault stated that they faced an offender with a firearm) compared to the US population (on the flip side According to Gary Kleck, a criminologist at Florida State University, there are 645,000 defensive uses of handguns per year in the U.S. Thirty-eight percent of convicted felons reported having been scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim. In robberies involving personal contact with the offender, 25 percent of victims who remained completely passive were injured anyway. Of those robbery victims wielding guns, only 17 percent were injured. Of those using weapons other than guns and knives, 22 percent were injured.)
now by comparison a drug user does in fact affect many more people than simply himself as drugs are often tied with other unlawful activity such as burglery, prostitution, armed robbery etc.. as well as extra demand on social and medical services. looking simply at a prime example of drunk drivers who are infact under the influence of a drug legal to possess and consume(but illegal to drive under the influence of) who consistantly cause harm to people other than themselve.

the basis of your argument is in fact flawed

firearms serve the purpose they were intended for-to protect ones life, family property and nation as was intended by this nations founders
firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. they are the american peoples liberty teeth and the keystone under independance. from the hour that the pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurances and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security and happiness. the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil influence. they deserve a place of honor with all that is good-george washington

drugs on the other hand rather legal or illegal are controlled and regulated by a society for the good of that society and it's legislated social standards. in this country a majority have in fact choosen to not accept some of these substances.

in some places it works and in some places it doesn't. if you want a pro-drug society move to someplace like denmark that has what you want.
:cool:

why do drugs carry so many problems with them? the fact that drugs are distributed by the black market leads to users beccoming exposed to the crime element, it results in very high prices (and subsequently theft) and it results in drug killings...

If drugs were a legitemate enterprise they could be controlled a lot better (purity, price etc) they could be taxed, users would not be exposed to a criminal element, rehabilitation would be a lot more available and education would be a lot more accurate....

The argument for Guns being legal? Its in the constitution.....


The biggest problems caused by drugs are simply caused because drugs are illegal.

A person SHOULD have the right to do anything to themselves that they wish, again the question of responsibility comes up, you say users steal, they kill, they are criminals... This is a question of responsibility. When you apply the same logic to guns, and guns are still legal i am worried.... if people as you say cannot be trusted then why the hell give them guns?

Now, im not saying the american constitution should change, but the fact that 'guns are on it and drugs are not' isnt any kind of argument

[QUOTE=IImperIIum of man]


now by comparison a drug user does in fact affect many more people than simply himself as drugs are often tied with other unlawful activity such as burglery, prostitution, armed robbery etc.. as well as extra demand on social and medical services. looking simply at a prime example of drunk drivers who are infact under the influence of a drug legal to possess and consume(but illegal to drive under the influence of) who consistantly cause harm to people other than themselve.

[QUOTE]


I wonder what the ratio of people who consume alcohal compared to those who commit crimes crimes while drunk. Again with marijuana or LSD.

as drugs are often tied with other unlawful activity such as burglery, prostitution, armed robbery etc. All that might mean is that people who break the law to use drugs are also willing to break other laws.

as Brizoa so rightly points out, a lot of drug statistics are correlational....

I will say simply this, drugs affect so many people simply because they are illegal.

Here in london, everyone i know under the age of 20 either does (60%) or has done marijuana (apart from one person, yes i only know one person who has never smoked pot, and i know a lot of people) And probably about 0.009% of these people have commited arrestable crimes... maybe i have witnessed one of them steal something. None of these people are insane, or dieing... in my very small area in west london, there have been 3 alcohol related stabbings, 2 shootings and a car battery acid attack... none of these crmes were reported to be drug related....

If any drug should be illegal i think alcohol ranks way ahead of heroine or crack for social problems.... furthermore drugs being illegal creates so many social problems in itself than any drug on its own could

P.S. Legalise the drugs! http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/31110/page=UN_proposal/start=70

speaking purely from the constitutional standpoint. the individual right to keep and bear arms was viewed as an undeniable RIGHT by our nations founders right along side the right to have freedom of speech, religion etc...

Speaking purely from a constitutional standpoint, as I'm sure our resident legal wonk Cat Tribe will point out, such a right does not exist. (See various supreme court cases on this topic)

Speaking purely from a constitutional standpoint, as I'm sure our resident legal wonk Cat Tribe will point out, such a right does not exist. (See various supreme court cases on this topic)

Or more properly he does not feel it's a right based off of court cases that primarily base precendent off of one skewed case from the 30's that the legal community has used as carte blanche to attempt to ban any and all types of firearms.

From a historical constitutional standpoint, the FF's were quite clear on the matter.

A Gun doesn't harm anyone unless someone picks it up and USES it for that purpose.

An illegal Drug doesn't harm anyone unless someone picks it up and USES it.

See the differences? The Gun has other (albeit limited) uses aside form killing someone. The illegal drug has no other uses* other than causing physical damage to the user. The Gun can be used for target practice, self defense, or simple display. What else can one do with a drug?

Unless there's an art movement where one simply stares at the illicit drugs, they really only have one purpose.

Now if it can be argued succesfully that induvidual drugs do not harm the user, allowances could be made. The only drug anyone ever mentions at that point is pot, which has a spotty record in clinical trials. Its hard to tell what's propaganda from the anti-drug agencies, and somewhat easier to tell whats propaganda from the stoner lobby.

IF we could find some hard evidence that pot, like alcohol, can be used in a limited, responsible fashion; without serious side effects or long term health damage, we could work something out as a society. How likely this is I don't know, but the main problem, as stated before, is that drugs harm regardless of how responsible one is, where a gun has great capacity for harm, but can be used well.
*This argument ignores possible medicinal values certain drugs might have of course.

A Gun doesn't harm anyone unless someone picks it up and USES it for that purpose.

An illegal Drug doesn't harm anyone unless someone picks it up and USES it.

It might also be noted that a person with a gun can use it in a manner which is perfectly responsible, while a person on drugs loses all sense of responsiblity. I've seen guys high. I don't want any more people to use them than already do.

Originally posted by Niccolo Medici

IF we could find some hard evidence that pot, like alcohol, can be used in a limited, responsible fashion; without serious side effects or long term health damage, we could work something out as a society.

Hold on a second...so your saying that we're going to hold Pot to the highest possible standard ever?

Alcohol has extremely serious side effects, both in terms of health and social interaction. It also has some of the worst long term health effects of any drug.

But yeah...pot can't be allowed to do anything close to that kind of damage..even if used in a "limited, responsible fashion". :rolleyes:

WHat wold you rather be in a roomful of: Sober people with guns, or drugged out people with machetes. :eek:

Hold on a second...so your saying that we're going to hold Pot to the highest possible standard ever?

Alcohol has extremely serious side effects, both in terms of health and social interaction. It also has some of the worst long term health effects of any drug.

But yeah...pot can't be allowed to do anything close to that kind of damage..even if used in a "limited, responsible fashion". :rolleyes:

Did I say it was fair? No. Its not fair, but its possibly the only way things would get changed. Quit your bitching and be a realist, I'm trying to help you.

Look, Pot is currently illegal. There's no vast bulwark of grassroots support for those looking to make it legal. Alcohol had the entire nation railing against prohibition, they were the arguement for it being repealed, not its "fairness." The war on drugs has not had the same impact on the conciousness of the US, however little the public thinks of the war on drugs right now, prohibition was markedly worse.

The only reliable way to stir up support is to make it look harmless, or at least on the same level as alcohol (which I mentioned in the same sentance as an indication of where I was going with that idea). Then, hit on that idea with lobbying groups and grassroots campaigning. You have to make it look like pot is unfairly catagorized with other drugs, that it belongs in the same sentance as alcohol, or else all the soccor moms and NASCAR dads will remain firmly against you.

If you can show the public that its no more harmful than alcohol (and the lest harmful the better) you have a chance of gaining support for its legalization. From that public support pressure can be put on the legislators for changing the law. Unless there is grassroots support, you haven't a hope in hell of getting it changed.

Unless there's an art movement where one simply stares at the illicit drugs, they really only have one purpose.


Well there's an idea...what should I call it...Fuxus? noo too similar to Fluxus. Drugsus? Now I just have to find illicit drugs. Exhibition opens tomorrow!

On a serious note. Very well put, once again. (I mean the whole post, not that one sentence)

Drugs are legal, partly... Alcohol is a drug, so's nicotine. If those two are legal, why not make marijuana legal too, alcohol's far worse than weed.

Grassroots. Ahaha, I get it; that was clever. Although you might want to take a trip to Surrey, BC...

Anyways, we can observe this from an economic standpoint. The arms industry in the United States is a rather large component of national output, while on the other hand, "hard drugs" like cocaine are smuggled in from latin american nations. Buying drugs results in a negative cash flow, and because drugs are unbelievably expensive, legalization would result in a huge reduction in GDP.

The economic damage is twofold, however. Drug addicts generally do not make good workers. Marijuana is the exception; it isn't all that harmful when used responsibly. Cocaine and heroine, however can destroy a person's productive capacities, thus removing a labourer from the economy. In addition, drugs are usually consumed by the younger members of society, who have four or five decades of production ahead of them.

So yeah, while drugs definitely have negative values on society, I'm a firm believer that the primary reason they remain illegal is because of their potentially devastating effect on the domestic economy.

As for marijuana, google "Reefer Madness."

Stay at home moms are screwing the economy then?

Less then satisfactory workers can (in theory) be fired. I would think that anyone who let's drug use interfere with work is probably a bad investment. Like people who show up drunk for work as a opposed to those of us who drink on our day off.

That's exactly what we need.

More damn potheads and retards out there. I mean, come on, don't we have enough idiots already?

I'm not even gonna touch the gun issue. I'll know that I'll piss off some anti-gun lobbyist and they'll talk me to death....

Speaking purely from a constitutional standpoint, as I'm sure our resident legal wonk Cat Tribe will point out, such a right does not exist. (See various supreme court cases on this topic)

incorrect and i can prove it(i've had this argument many times)

just for starters here is one of many of the saved text files i have related to the subject(i'd give more but i have to go to work)
Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski, is reprinted below--Nicholas Provenzo
Judges know very well how to read the Constitution broadly when they are sympathetic to the right being asserted. We have held, without much ado, that "speech, or . . . the press" also means the Internet, and that "persons, houses, papers, and effects" also means public telephone booths. When a particular right comports especially well with our notions of good social policy, we build magnificent legal edifices on elliptical constitutional phrases--or even the white spaces between lines of constitutional text. But, as the panel amply demonstrates, when we're none too keen on a particular constitutional guarantee, we can be equally ingenious in burying language that is incontrovertibly there.
It is wrong to use some constitutional provisions as spring-boards for major social change while treating others like senile relatives to be cooped up in a nursing home until they quit annoying us. As guardians of the Constitution, we must be consistent in interpreting its provisions. If we adopt a jurisprudence sympathetic to individual rights, we must give broad compass to all constitutional provisions that protect individuals from tyranny. If we take a more statist approach, we must give all such provisions narrow scope. Expanding some to gargantuan proportions while discarding others like a crumpled gum wrapper is not faithfully applying the Constitution; it's using our power as federal judges to constitutionalize our personal preferences.
The able judges of the panel majority are usually very sympathetic to individual rights, but they have succumbed to the temptation to pick and choose. Had they brought the same generous approach to the Second Amendment that they routinely bring to the First, Fourth and selected portions of the Fifth, they would have had no trouble finding an individual right to bear arms. Indeed, to conclude otherwise, they had to ignore binding precedent. United States v. Miller (1939) did not hold that the defendants lacked standing to raise a Second Amendment defense, even though the government argued the collective rights theory in its brief. The Supreme Court reached the Second Amendment claim and rejected it on the merits after finding no evidence that Miller's weapon--a sawed-off shotgun--was reasonably susceptible to militia use. We are bound not only by the outcome of Miller but also by its rationale. If Miller's claim was dead on arrival because it was raised by a person rather than a state, why would the Court have bothered discussing whether a sawed-off shotgun was suitable for militia use? The panel majority not only ignores Miller's test; it renders most of the opinion wholly superfluous. As an inferior court, we may not tell the Supreme Court it was out to lunch when it last visited a constitutional provision.
The majority falls prey to the delusion--popular in some circles--that ordinary people are too careless and stupid to own guns, and we would be far better off leaving all weapons in the hands of professionals on the government payroll. But the simple truth--born of experience--is that tyranny thrives best where government need not fear the wrath of an armed people. Our own sorry history bears this out: Disarmament was the tool of choice for subjugating both slaves and free blacks in the South. In Florida, patrols searched blacks' homes for weapons, confiscated those found and punished their owners without judicial process. In the North, by contrast, blacks exercised their right to bear arms to defend against racial mob violence. As Chief Justice Taney well appreciated, the institution of slavery required a class of people who lacked the means to resist. See Dred Scott v. Sandford, (1857) (finding black citizenship unthinkable because it would give blacks the right to "keep and carry arms wherever they went"). A revolt by Nat Turner and a few dozen other armed blacks could be put down without much difficulty; one by four million armed blacks would have meant big trouble.
All too many of the other great tragedies of history--Stalin's atrocities, the killing fields of Cambodia, the Holocaust, to name but a few--were perpetrated by armed troops against unarmed populations. Many could well have been avoided or mitigated, had the perpetrators known their intended victims were equipped with a rifle and twenty bullets apiece, as the Militia Act required here. If a few hundred Jewish fighters in the Warsaw Ghetto could hold off the Wehrmacht for almost a month with only a handful of weapons, six million Jews armed with rifles could not so easily have been herded into cattle cars.
My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons of history. The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed--where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.
Fortunately, the Framers were wise enough to entrench the right of the people to keep and bear arms within our constitutional structure. The purpose and importance of that right was still fresh in their minds, and they spelled it out clearly so it would not be forgotten. Despite the panel's mighty struggle to erase these words, they remain, and the people themselves can read what they say plainly enough:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The sheer ponderousness of the panel's opinion--the mountain of verbiage it must deploy to explain away these fourteen short words of constitutional text--refutes its thesis far more convincingly than anything I might say. The panel's labored effort to smother the Second Amendment by sheer body weight has all the grace of a sumo wrestler trying to kill a rattlesnake by sitting on it--and is just as likely to succeed.

P.S. new alderon
britain has a higher per capital general crime rate than the US which is growing while the US's is declining

LOL

I love the arguments here ..they make ... sooo much sense :D

I mean guns are ok as someone said that its a right like YEARS ago :/

also the argument that guns do not just have the one use of killing people .. they can be hung on a wall and looked at, used to threaten to kill people, kill people when defending your propety, used to practice and get better at killing people with less shots, bragged about how big it is. And yet drugs can only be used to cause harm .. lol if that was the case why do you think people take drugs ?? deathwish ??

You have to be a bit more open minded, the first guy was right.

Guns are designed for a single purpose, to kill, thats it no other purpose, drugs have been designed for a completely different reason ( those that have been designed that is, pot is a purely natural substance created and given to us by God )

Personally I think that America is stuck with its gun laws, they are too tied into the culture to remove them, taking them out now would simply cause more problems as of course there would be many people who still demand their "right" lol to bear arms. However the people need to understand that the "drugs problem" is only a problem because of the way that the US government is handling it.

break it down into simple bite sized chunks.

The people who take drugs dont like having to pay taxes to fight the war against them

The people who dont take drugs are fed up of paying to fight this war on drugs.

The governemnt love the war on drugs as its a bottomless pit that they can always call on when funds are short.

BUT

put a pot head in jail ... he can still get pot ( easier than outside in fact )
therefore the punishment is NOT working , therefore the money spent is WASTED, thats the money spent to pick up the guy smoking pot, the police officers invloved there, the court case, the prison cell costs you more moneyagain and its all doing nothing, he is sitting there puffing away on his nice free bed. Therefore, is it not logical to legalise ??? and TAX the drug making those that wish to experience it pay. Due to it being

then the people who dont want to take drugs no longer pay for any war on drugs .. the people that DO want to help supplment the governemt .. think of the taxes your governemnt makes a year on cigarettes, multiply that number .. and instead of it being an outgoing it becomes an incoming ??

also when you have control of it you can monitor who is taking how much where the problems arise if crime is supplementing their income.

Fighting against drugs is ridiculous, its like vietnam all over again, its a war that cannot be won, its a bottomless pit for government funds thats what it is

people were smoking pot since before the first distiller .... people always will there is nothing you can do to stop it, ever.

btw things that can be done with the marijuana plant :

dried up and made into cloth
dried up and made into rope
dried and smoked
dried and disolved in butter for cooking
releive the pain of MS
relieve of hayfever
relief of stress
used to assist lateral thought
used for fun and social interaction

it has many more uses than a gun

This is something which i stumbled upon, normally people wouldnt take any notice of this 'anomaly' but i realised...

If Guns (projectile weapons designed to kill or seriously injure 'OTHER PEOPLE') are legal then how can we justify the fact that Drugs (Recreational/mind altering substances which arguably harm only the user) are not only illegal but punishable by mandatory prison sentances just for possesion...

The problem i see with this is it is an issue of responsability, is the question of responsability not the reason drugs are illegal, because people cannot be trusted/dont know what is good for them yet at the same time they can be trusted with lethal weapons?

Im sure a lot of people here are pro legalisation but i want to focus on this contradiction, does the fact that guns are legal (in america) de-legitimise the fact that drugs are not?

How can you possibly justify classifying drugs, without giving reasons which can also be applied to guns (and therefore being a contradiction in the law)

I put a gun in your hands (Hypothetically), and you shoot it. I take the gun away, and don't let you play with it again. Further, shooting the gun doesn't generally alter one's mental state toward irresponsible (say, shooting it at people instead of targets) behaviour. Owning a gun does not make you drive erratically, the gun does not 'speak' to you or confuse your senses at inopportune moments (Like on the Jobsite-where screwing up can get someone killed...)
You're not going to have the sweats, or shakes, or hallucinations/cramping/painful side-effects from not having the gun in your hands regularly.

Now, instead of a gun, I shoot you up with something illegal-say, Heroin, or Methamphetemine, or maybe a nice freebase of Cocaine (that would be 'Crack' for those of you born after 1975.)
Odds are, if you're like most people, and the drug is relatively pure, you're going to experience all kinds of needing it. With LSD, you might not suffer withdrawal, but it sits in your spinal chord, and crack your back here-it comes for round two!

Drugs impair your judgement, having a gun does not. simpicity.

first of all, are you saying carrying a gun doesn't alter your state of mind? i would tend to disagree with that to a point...

P.S. new alderon
britain has a higher per capital general crime rate than the US which is growing while the US's is declining

lol i would really like to know where you got that statistic.... Fox news maybe? lol


There is a trend beggining to show here... Drug users are retards... they are dangerous, they have no control over themselves, they impair driving etc...

Retards? Marijuana makes you a hell of a lot more intelligent, if you have taken it then you know this is the case, Speed results in a level of concentration which cannot be matched by the un-medicated mind, infact, i cant think of a single drug which reduces intelligence, maybe glue or alcohol (yes ALCOHOL)

They are dangerous? Ever seen someone high on weed? Do you really think they are a danger to you? They are more likely to be sitting at home with thier friends playing Gran Turismo or contemplating existance... What about extacy, someone who is pilling is more likely to hug you than hit you, cocain, Angel Dust and Alcohol are the only drugs which may result in dangerous behaviour, though alcohol is likely the one which makes you the most dangerous... Has someone on coke ever raped someone? probably, but compared to alcohol this figure is non existant

They have no control over themselves? Well, again alcohol comes up, i would go as far as to say that many drugs result in the user having heightened levels of control over themselves

Driving? Well, apart from the fact that if drugs were legal laws would be passed which would make them illigal when driving (as is alcohol)... now with the exception of maybe LSD, Ket, PCP and similar drugs, most drugs actually make you a BETTER driver... Long distance Truck Drivers regularly take speed to keep themselves awake, marijuana does not impair driving unless the user is in a psychosis, coke has no effect on driving itself only attitude, speed improves driving a thousandfold....

'Drug-driving' is not even an argument



Now, some people may be totally happy with the governament putting people in jail simply because they chose to exercise thier rights as human beings to do whatever they want with thier own bodies (call it birth right, god given right whatever)

Do you really think people who simply take marijuana deserve to be put in jail for 3 years?


Now this idea of drug legalisation isnt what you think, infact a lot of people firmly believe it will DECREASE drug usage

If drugs are legal it allows for much more effective education, rehabilitation, monitoring and specific drug laws (eg taking drugs while at work, while driving etc..)

If you think that if drugs were legal your country would trn into a pit of slobbering retards and psychopaths overnight then you really need to research the subject a little.


Legalisation of drugs wouldresult in less tax being spent on them, more tax COMING from drugs, the illegal drug trade and all its social side effects would simply be erradicated, i could go on but i would like to close on this poiint...

The american governament sells siezed drugs back to the countries from which they were supplied.... what did you think they burned them??? Now this is the biggest example of hypocrisy i have ever heard.... How can you tell people you are fighting a war on drugs when you help facilitate the supplyers?



edit>> By the way that resolution is now located here

http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/75913/page=UN_proposal/start=45

Posted by New Alderon
Driving? Well, apart from the fact that if drugs were legal laws would be passed which would make them illigal when driving (as is alcohol)... now with the exception of maybe LSD, Ket, PCP and similar drugs, most drugs actually make you a BETTER driver... Long distance Truck Drivers regularly take speed to keep themselves awake, marijuana does not impair driving unless the user is in a psychosis, coke has no effect on driving itself only attitude, speed improves driving a thousandfold....

'Drug-driving' is not even an argument

Oh my, I have some fond memories of drug use. But this sound a bit like those people who say they drive better when they've had a few drinks. I'm speaking from personal experience only. I remember getting stoned on marijuana pretty well, I remember the distorted sense of time and space. Such as my arms feeling much longer then usual or failing to respond to some one talking to you because of being distracted by your own thoughts. Maybe I'm a special case. But I doubt it.

Where are you getting this stuff? Do you have any source we can study for ourselves?

Has someone on coke ever raped someone? probably, but compared to alcohol this figure is non existant

According to my lawyer, Yes. I volunteer in his office and he's a family friend so I get to hear about various legal cases. He told me about a man who got coked up raped his wife repeatedly.

Silverman, et al, (2004) used data from the 1997 and the 1999 Massachusetts Youth Risk Behavior Surveys to study associations among forced sex and a variety of independent variables. Significant associations between forced sex and: substance abuse, younger age at first sex, pregnancy, suicidality, and unhealthful weight management. Physical and/or sexual abuse was reported in about 20% of their subjects, and such violence was significantly associated with cocaine usage.
http://www.ejhs.org/volume7/forcedsex.html

not all
speaking purely from the constitutional standpoint. the individual right to keep and bear arms was viewed as an undeniable RIGHT by our nations founders right along side the right to have freedom of speech, religion etc...

Whereas the idea that your right to farm a crop could ever be taken away was considered to be so absurd as to not even warrant their attention. If you had told Thomas Jefferson that in 100 years his hemp (industrial hemp, not marijuana) crop would be illegal he'd probably have laughed at you. If you told Madison he'd have told you that's why you have to do something about the 2 party system.

I say arm the crackheads. That way I can buy their guns for ten dollars each.

This is something which i stumbled upon, normally people wouldnt take any notice of this 'anomaly' but i realised...

If Guns (projectile weapons designed to kill or seriously injure 'OTHER PEOPLE') are legal then how can we justify the fact that Drugs (Recreational/mind altering substances which arguably harm only the user) are not only illegal but punishable by mandatory prison sentances just for possesion...

The problem i see with this is it is an issue of responsability, is the question of responsability not the reason drugs are illegal, because people cannot be trusted/dont know what is good for them yet at the same time they can be trusted with lethal weapons?

Im sure a lot of people here are pro legalisation but i want to focus on this contradiction, does the fact that guns are legal (in america) de-legitimise the fact that drugs are not?

How can you possibly justify classifying drugs, without giving reasons which can also be applied to guns (and therefore being a contradiction in the law)

they are both illegal. which country do you mean? very few guns are legal here and only for hunting

I say arm the crackheads.
That sounds like something out of a Choking Victim song.

A Gun doesn't harm anyone unless someone picks it up and USES it for that purpose.

An illegal Drug doesn't harm anyone unless someone picks it up and USES it.

See the differences? The Gun has other (albeit limited) uses aside from killing someone. The illegal drug has no other uses* other than causing physical damage to the user. The Gun can be used for target practice, self defense, or simple display. What else can one do with a drug?


Now if it can be argued succesfully that induvidual drugs do not harm the user, allowances could be made. The only drug anyone ever mentions at that point is pot, which has a spotty record in clinical trials. Its hard to tell what's propaganda from the anti-drug agencies, and somewhat easier to tell whats propaganda from the stoner lobby.

IF we could find some hard evidence that pot, like alcohol, can be used in a limited, responsible fashion; without serious side effects or long term health damage, we could work something out as a society. How likely this is I don't know, but the main problem, as stated before, is that drugs harm regardless of how responsible one is, where a gun has great capacity for harm, but can be used well.
*This argument ignores possible medicinal values certain drugs might have of course.
I'm sorry, could you please give me a example where a gun can be used for anything else other than destroying something? And yes, shooting a burglar still fits into the category of destroying something. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but you have to admit that guns have no other uses other than destuction of things. That's what they're designed for.
Unless you mean using the butt of one as a hammer when building a house, say. That's constructive - as long as you remember to unload it first.

By adding the disclaimer that the medicinal purposes of certain illegal drugs be ignored kinda ruins your whole argument. You can't focus just on the negatives on drug use and compare it to the positives of gun use. That's just fitting facts (and ignoring others) to suit your opinion.

Also you can't say that illegal drugs have to have perfect clinical trials before thay should be considered being decriminalised. If you look at the side-effects of any legal drug being put out on the market, there's not one of them that would pass your test of needing to be perfectly safe to all. In fact, some legal drugs have far worse side effects on people than some illegal drugs. And drug companies love to understate the side-effects and adverse reaction rates.

Medicinal marijuana trials have been pretty comprehensive in their positive effects on glaucoma and relieving nausea for cancer patients after treatment. Morphine's pretty good as a pain reliever too, I understand. Not what I would call "no other uses other than causing physical damage to the user".
Alcohol has "no other uses other than causing physical damage to the user" - aside maybe for making ugly people pretty and sterilising equipment - yet it's still legal.


What would you rather be in a roomful of: Sober people with guns, or drugged out people with machetes.
Depends on the crowd. Are we comparing a roomful of Deliverance-type Bubbas to a roomful of stoners?
If so, I'd prefer to be the second room. The Bubbas would soon be looking around for something to shoot, but the stoners would just stare at the machettes for ages trying to figure out what they are, before wandering off to look for chocolate and cookies or simply passing out.

That's exactly what we need.

More damn potheads and retards out there. I mean, come on, don't we have enough idiots already?
Well judging from your well-thought out post, I would say you obviously don't think so...

one does not for example have a "right" to drive a car. it is a privalige(SP?)
that can legally be revoked by the government.

Not true, you can drive your car around on private property all you want without a license.

Oh my, I have some fond memories of drug use. But this sound a bit like those people who say they drive better when they've had a few drinks. I'm speaking from personal experience only. I remember getting stoned on marijuana pretty well, I remember the distorted sense of time and space. Such as my arms feeling much longer then usual or failing to respond to some one talking to you because of being distracted by your own thoughts. Maybe I'm a special case. But I doubt it.

Where are you getting this stuff? Do you have any source we can study for ourselves?



According to my lawyer, Yes. I volunteer in his office and he's a family friend so I get to hear about various legal cases. He told me about a man who got coked up raped his wife repeatedly.

Silverman, et al, (2004) used data from the 1997 and the 1999 Massachusetts Youth Risk Behavior Surveys to study associations among forced sex and a variety of independent variables. Significant associations between forced sex and: substance abuse, younger age at first sex, pregnancy, suicidality, and unhealthful weight management. Physical and/or sexual abuse was reported in about 20% of their subjects, and such violence was significantly associated with cocaine usage.
http://www.ejhs.org/volume7/forcedsex.html


to the first point, i was comparing drug use to alcohol... there are very few drugs which impair your driving anything close to what alcohol does... FURTHERMORE i did state that while this is the case, people still wouldnt be allowed to drive with drugs in thier system, but i see you chose to ignore that.... Also, i would say that yes you are a special case, mostly people feel a lot more clearheaded when stoned, ok if you smoke a kilo of thaiweed then your not gonna walk let alone drive but whatever

Secondly, i said the percentage COMPARED to alcohol related rapes.... Wow you knopw of one person who took coke and also raped his wife?

I would li9ke to introduce you to the concept of correlation, simple people will see correlation as cause and effect... Furthermore if you take a large sample of the population who take coke, and discover a correlation between coke usage and crime.... First of all this sample is likely taken from an impoverished area, which can result in both crime and drug usage....

Take a sample of coke, weed and heroine users from a rich suburban area, or from hollywood and you will find a NEGATIVE correlation between usage and crime...

This is the same with the whole 'drugs cause mental illness' myth... A psychologist will tell you a skitzophrenic is much more likely to take to drug usage,a depressive even more so, to say the drugs CAUSE these things is missing the point.


Its like you are reading my posts and then deciding not to respond to them, then just say something intelligent sounding

lol i would really like to know where you got that statistic.... Fox news maybe? lol
new alderon try something a bit more substantial some of it coming straight from your own government-

JOYCE L MALCOLMProfessor of history, Bentley College, US Author of Guns & Violence: the English Experience Senior Advisor, MIT Security Studies Program Government assured Britons they needed no weapons, society would protect them. If that were so in 1920 when the first firearms restrictions were passed, or in 1953 when Britons were forbidden to carry any article for their protection, it no longer is.
The failure of this general disarmament to stem, or even slow, armed and violent crime could not be more blatant. According to a recent UN study, England and Wales have the highest crime rate and worst record for "very serious" offences of the 18 industrial countries surveyed.

as well as

violent crime in America has been plummeting for 10 consecutive years, even as British violence has been rising. By 1995 English rates of violent crime were already far higher than America's for every major violent crime except murder and rape.
You are now six times more likely to be mugged in London than New York. Why? Because as common law appreciated, not only does an armed individual have the ability to protect himself or herself but criminals are less likely to attack them. They help keep the peace. A study found American burglars fear armed home-owners more than the police. As a result burglaries are much rarer and only 13% occur when people are at home, in contrast to 53% in England.


and
Office of Health Economics in London found, not weapons availability, but "particular cultural factors" are to blame.
A study comparing New York and London over 200 years found the New York homicide rate consistently five times the London rate, although for most of that period residents of both cities had unrestricted access to firearms.
When guns were available in England they were seldom used in crime. A government study for 1890-1892 found an average of one handgun homicide a year in a population of 30 million. But murder rates for both countries are now changing. In 1981 the American rate was 8.7 times the English rate, in 1995 it was 5.7 times the English rate, and by last year it was 3.5 times. With American rates described as "in startling free-fall" and British rates as of October 2002 the highest for 100 years the two are on a path to converge.

armed bookworms
Not true, you can drive your car around on private property all you want without a license.
and if you do so recklessly you can be fined or arrested because you do not have a constitutionally garaunteed right to own much less drive said vehicle.

demented hamster
I'm sorry, could you please give me a example where a gun can be used for anything else other than destroying something? And yes, shooting a burglar still fits into the category of destroying something. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but you have to admit that guns have no other uses other than destuction of things. That's what they're designed for.
the following excerp (in the next post) i saved and agree with from a different debate forum long ago pretty well sumps up every point i have seen made against gun owners. in your particular case note the later part of the debate.

for demented hamster
To Glenny-boy:from ohanntomfive

I agree with you that stupid people should not be allowed guns. I agree with you that guns need some (note, SOME, preferably minor) restrictions. I agree that people should be able to feel safe.

I simply disagree with some assumptions you make and the way you wish to bring about your ends.

Assumption: everyone having guns is dangerous.
By and large, this is false. In addition to the examples cited below, take the Swiss, with every male above 18 armed. Take the early U.S., where there were laws in many state constitutions stating that men (even if not eligible for militia duty) were REQUIRED to carry a firearm if they left the house. Take the Old West, where despite myths of hot-tempered cowboys and life being cheap, there was considerably less crime than in most large cities today, and people were much more polite and civilized, by and large. Take Vermont, which to this day has no state laws (only federal) restricting gun ownership and carry...Vermont allows anyone to carry concealed with no license. Vermont also has a very low crime rate, as opposed to the "Mad Max" style atmosphere you envision, with everyone brandishing their guns at each other.
Bob Heinlein said it best: "An armed society is a polite society." A society that supports gun ownership (particularly parentally guided gun ownership) rather than making guns objects of fear and mystery does NOT encourage violence and foolish behavior...quite the contrary, it encourages personal responsibility, civility, and dealing with trouble in a calm manner. Gun training is not about how to get into violent shootouts or gun down people in cold blood...it is mostly about how to respect the power a gun possesses, avoid having to use it, and only using it when absolutely necessary.

Assumption: if nobody had guns, we'd all be safer.
In part, this assumption is true...unfortunately, it's also impossible. Guns are a Pandora's box that once opened, can never be shut again. There is NO WAY at this time to deprive criminals of guns...it simply cannot be done. Even if you made all guns illegal and passed the death penalty for owning one, I'd bet criminals could still get them (and would...a gun would be a tremendous advantage for a criminal in a gunless society). The gun laws in the U.S. are legion, and have done little if anything to prevent criminal use of guns. There is simply no way gun laws (even a total ban) can stop criminals from getting guns.
The U.K. has a total ban, does it not? (not sure) I believe there are still gun-armed criminals there. In the U.S., with the immense number of guns already in the country, it would be even more impossible.

Assumption: I have a right to be safe, and that right vetoes anybody's right to own a gun.
While I believe both in a person's right to feel safe and right to own a gun, I feel man really has no natural rights (another Bob Heinlein concept)...none save those he is willing to defend with life and death (his own, or those who would take them from him). Americans have a right to own guns, but this does not prevent people from trying to deny that right...and if they try, it's up to the person to stop them. Most people believe they have a right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", but what right to life does a man drowning in the ocean have? What right to life did Kitty Genovese have (for those unfamiliar, she was murdered while her neighbors listened...no one called the police)? She may have had the right, but no law or government body could have protected her right. Only she herself.
While I believe people have rights only so far as they do not infringe the rights of others, this is a very gray area. You would deny guns because they infringe on your right not to get shot? Should I deny people cigarettes or booze because they infringe on my right not to get cancer or be run down in the street? Should I deny people aerosol sprays because they infringe on my right to have an ozone layer and not be killed by radiation?
You may think I'm making poor comparisons, but I disagree...your right not to be shot is no more (or less) important than my right to own a gun. Nothing can prevent you from being shot, unless you take actions to avoid it (locking yourself in your house, fleeing at the sight of a weapon, submitting to any armed man, or shooting a would-be assailant). A gun ban would not prevent people from shooting you...it would merely make you feel safer. Should we take away our right to feel safer in order to make you feel safer? It's a two-way street.
You mention the fact that you can do something to avoid being run down by a car, whereas you can do nothing to avoid being shot. I beg to differ. Even if you never left your house, this would not prevent some madman from crashing his car into your living room and killing you. You can do no more (or less) to protect yourself from cars than you can to protect yourself from guns.

Assumption: guns are made to kill, cars are not. Hence, cars have a useful function that guns do not.
I believe any man-made object has only one function: to please the people who use it. Cars, guns, video game machines...their function, universally, is to please the people who own them. This is regardless of what they are used for.
I can use my gun for target practice, or hell, never use it at all...and it can still provide me with great enjoyment, if I am a target shooter or a collector. I could be a PACIFIST, unwilling to shoot another human being, but this would not detract from my enjoyment of either of the above activities.
The fact that cars help people get from place to place is no more relevant than the fact that some people (me, for one) just plain like to own guns. Cars serve as transport? As you mention, so do bikes and trains, not to mention planes, boats, and feet. Big deal. If you're going to outlaw guns because they can cause death, then it is no less ridiculous to outlaw cars.

Finally, means to an end: we don't want stupid people to have guns, so don't let ANYONE have guns.
This is a perfect example of punishing people for what they MIGHT do. We have no perfect way to determine whether or not a person is stupid, hot-tempered, or otherwise a poor candidate for gun ownership. Even if they are a paragon of society when they acquire the gun, they could become different later.
But denying guns to all on this basis is as ridiculous as denying everyone a car because they might drive drunk, or not allowing anyone on planes because they might hijack them. We cannot predict (accurately, at least) criminal behavior...hence, we have no way to use preventative measures on criminals without also using them on law-abiding people. And punishing (or using preventative measures on, pick your euphasism) the innocent as well as the guilty is not justice.

The comment i was responing to was 'The Britishcrime rate is higher than the american crime rate'

you still havnt posted anything that sais otherwise

Legalize drugs? Are you insane? Unless you're strictly keeping this to marijuana, doing this creates a (lucrative) market for self-destructive products. Not only will legalizing drugs allow them to be bought, advertisers will encourage their purchase, thus encouraging people, young people, to destroy their bodies.

Legalizing drugs is simply not a sound economic policy.

But yeah I don't see why they put druggies in jail... I'd rather my money pay to put them in rehab clinics.


As for the 2nd amendment
Change it already. We don't need militias anymore. Especially not when they can be destroyed by the armed forces instantaneously.

As for the 2nd amendment
Change it already. .

You're right, get rid of the preamble that allows Anti-Rights groups to argue that it really isn't a right of the people.

Fugliness....

The current situation is that there allready is a drug market...

By making this market legitemate, purity, availability, prices and strength can be controlled

In britain it is illegal to advertise cigarettes, drugs would have the same warning messages that cigarettes do and advertising would not be an issue.

A lot of people make the mistake of thinking that legalising drugs means that people will be allowed to work stoned, drive while tripping, or be in high responsability positions such as a polititian if they use drugs....

The legalisation of drugs would improve the situation, i cant believe people still think that we cant be trusted to make decisions for ourselves. Most of the problems blamed on drugs are actually caused by impoverishment or simply generic social problems.... Drugs have long been a scapegoat, while other products such as pharmaceuticals, macdonalds, alcohol and cigarettes get a free ride because the companies behind them practicly controll the governament (ok take that with a pinch of salt but you really think any world governament could take on a tobacco company?)

Well you can get nasty poo from simple manufacturing ammos, or something nice. But if I can stirr this even more,, didn't God make everything in Earth? So well do I need to paint you a picture? But anyway how can man ban something that God make? We should be Earths little gardener's but now we're saying who owns what and what you can plant and reap. And making more guns, missiles to protect us,kill us all for what? Simply because we haven't travelled long enough from those animal ancestors, we still need to argue about anything we can get into our hands. Awww rant and awfully jumpy one.

god isnt the issue here, free will is the issue....

Then again free will is another debate entirely

Well it was just view point about illegal drugs.

i know, but i am agnostic and cant comment on your point of view :D

The popint is the 'god deems it so' argument only seems to work for George Bush ... The point is you will never convince people to change legislation by giving them your interpretation of what God's will is... Not that i disagree with you at all, but i feel that free will is just as legitemate a reason, also it was god that suposedly gave us free will so it ties in with your arguemnt...

God gave us free will so why do people have the right to take it away

No one takes anything from anyone. They give it to them. How can you take free will by force from anyone if he's against it? Well you can lock him up, beat him, kill him but have you taken away anything from him? He says no to you what can you do? He still laughs and got his freedom in his mind.

You can create an environment in which people are afraid to exercise thier free will

The comment i was responing to was 'The Britishcrime rate is higher than the american crime rate'

you still havnt posted anything that sais otherwise
new alderon
then you obviously didn't read much of what i posted


like this little piece
By 1995 English rates of violent crime were already far higher than America's for every major violent crime except murder and rape.
You are now six times more likely to be mugged in London than New York.


The overall crime rate in England and Wales is now 60 percent higher than in the United States.


According to a recent UN study, England and Wales have the highest crime rate and worst record for "very serious" offences of the 18 industrial countries surveyed(including the USA).

new alderon
then you obviously didn't read much of what i posted


like this little piece



The overall crime rate in England and Wales is now 60 percent higher than in the United States.


According to a recent UN study, England and Wales have the highest crime rate and worst record for "very serious" offences of the 18 industrial countries surveyed(including the USA).


But if you look at shootings...?

This is something which i stumbled upon, normally people wouldnt take any notice of this 'anomaly' but i realised...

If Guns (projectile weapons designed to kill or seriously injure 'OTHER PEOPLE') are legal then how can we justify the fact that Drugs (Recreational/mind altering substances which arguably harm only the user) are not only illegal but punishable by mandatory prison sentances just for possesion...

The problem i see with this is it is an issue of responsability, is the question of responsability not the reason drugs are illegal, because people cannot be trusted/dont know what is good for them yet at the same time they can be trusted with lethal weapons?

Im sure a lot of people here are pro legalisation but i want to focus on this contradiction, does the fact that guns are legal (in america) de-legitimise the fact that drugs are not?

How can you possibly justify classifying drugs, without giving reasons which can also be applied to guns (and therefore being a contradiction in the law)


Guns are legal because they're made by large corporations that contribute huge sums of money to campaign contributions. Drugs are illegal because they're something that you and I can make or sell if we were so inclined. The government hates it when the everyday man tries to get ahead and make some money. This government detests libertarianism and real freedom, and yes, that is the fault of BOTH Democrats and Republicans for crafting government into such a huge bloated behemoth that refuses to remove it's leech like mouth from the private lives of American citizens.

*looks up from snorting a line of coke from shotgun barrel* What was the question again?

speaking purely from the constitutional standpoint. the individual right to keep and bear arms was viewed as an undeniable RIGHT by our nations founders right along side the right to have freedom of speech, religion etc...
Actually, the second amendment is often misinterperated. In full, it goes "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

So basically, it's saying that members of the militia should have guns. A militia is a standing army, meaning this is no more special than saying "members of the army can have guns". Of all the people you know who have guns, how many of them are in the militia? None, because militias don't exist anymore. It says nothing about normal people keeping guns.

Now, I don't think guns should be outlawed, but the government does have the right to interject, and should have tough registration standards.

Actually, the second amendment is often misinterperated. In full, it goes "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

So basically, it's saying that members of the militia should have guns. A militia is a standing army, meaning this is no more special than saying "members of the army can have guns". Of all the people you know who have guns, how many of them are in the militia? None, because militias don't exist anymore. It says nothing about normal people keeping guns.

Now, I don't think guns should be outlawed, but the government does have the right to interject, and should have tough registration standards.

And you do not know your history. The militia is not a standing army. it IS the people. Try reading the second part of it.

*looks up from snorting a line of coke from shotgun barrel* What was the question again?

If that's a double barrel and do you mind sharing? :)

speaking purely from the constitutional standpoint. the individual right to keep and bear arms was viewed as an undeniable RIGHT by our nations founders right along side the right to have freedom of speech, religion etc...

one does not for example have a "right" to drive a car. it is a privalige(SP?)
that can legally be revoked by the government.


just as one does not have a legal "right" to use certain controlled substances.

the simple harm factor of firearms or drugs does not put them in the same catagory. you are discussing apples and oranges.

lets look at a few examples
.firearms in and of themselves cannot harm you. it takes a person loading, chambering aiming and firing the weapon to cause harm. drugs on the other hand simply by ingestion(and sometimes in the manufacture in the case of methamphetamines) cause physical harm

Yeah but you still need a person to sell them to you, you have to be stupid enough to take em. In the end it's still people. A certain use of a drug can be beneficial whilst others can be harmful, just like guns. You either make both legal or both illegal because it has the same basis.

"Watch out that guys throwing cocain"

See how that doesn't work. You take drugs yourself, you do it all to yourself, the purposeful use of a gun will generally kill someone else.

Yeah but you still need a person to sell them to you, you have to be stupid enough to take em. In the end it's still people. A certain use of a drug can be beneficial whilst others can be harmful, just like guns. You either make both legal or both illegal because it has the same basis.

"Watch out that guys throwing cocain"

See how that doesn't work. You take drugs yourself, you do it all to yourself, the purposeful use of a gun will generally kill someone else.

So let's make drugs legal and let the stupid ones sort themselves out while keeping guns legal allowing LAC's to defend themselves from the agressive stupid ones (w/ or w/o drug influence).

both should be legal

This is something which i stumbled upon, normally people wouldnt take any notice of this 'anomaly' but i realised...

If Guns (projectile weapons designed to kill or seriously injure 'OTHER PEOPLE') are legal then how can we justify the fact that Drugs (Recreational/mind altering substances which arguably harm only the user) are not only illegal but punishable by mandatory prison sentances just for possesion...

The problem i see with this is it is an issue of responsability, is the question of responsability not the reason drugs are illegal, because people cannot be trusted/dont know what is good for them yet at the same time they can be trusted with lethal weapons?

Im sure a lot of people here are pro legalisation but i want to focus on this contradiction, does the fact that guns are legal (in america) de-legitimise the fact that drugs are not?

How can you possibly justify classifying drugs, without giving reasons which can also be applied to guns (and therefore being a contradiction in the law)

You can't.

Stop the prohibition. Let people be responsible. If they prove they're not THEN do something, but until that happens, leave 'em alone.

So basically, it's saying that members of the militia should have guns. A militia is a standing army, meaning this is no more special than saying "members of the army can have guns". Of all the people you know who have guns, how many of them are in the militia? None, because militias don't exist anymore. It says nothing about normal people keeping guns.

Now, I don't think guns should be outlawed, but the government does have the right to interject, and should have tough registration standards.
robot ninja pirates:
yes there is misinterpritation going on and i see you bought into it.

the first part of the ammendmant deals with the rights of the STATE to have standing regulated military forces. the second half deals with the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms. in ALL other ammendmants (1st, 4th, 5th 9th etc..) it is understood and accepted that the "state" refers to government and the "people" refers to individual citizens. so yes it does indeed say something about normal people keeping guns.
to further back that up look at the intent from the founders and other men in US history who understood the founders intent from thier own words on how they felt about individual "normal people" keeping firearms

firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. they are the american peoples liberty teeth and the keystone under independance. from the hour that the pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurances and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security and happiness. the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil influence. they deserve a place of honor with all that is good"-george washington


A free people ought...to be armed..."
--George Washington


When firearms go, all goes. We need them every hour.
-George Washington

"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived the use of them."
-Thomas Paine.


"To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
-George Mason


"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
-Alexander Hamilton

"The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry

"To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
-Richard Henry Lee

"The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."
-Samuel Adams

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
-Thomas Jefferson



even today as i posted in the national guard thread according to the US government there is an organized "militia" in the form of the national guard and coast guard as well as the "unorganized militia" consisting of all able-bodied men between the ages of 17 and 45 who present themselves for military service in defence of thier country with thier own weapons.

as for the right to interject up until 1934 with the first gun control law (national firarms act) it was believed that congress had no right to regulate firearms, and since we the people let this one law slip in through the back door as a comerce act. they have been slowly wittling away our right to the point there are now over 22,000 gun laws in the US aside from preventing felons and insane people from getting firarms i see no other need for government intervention. and if you bother to look at history EVERY single time any government has proceeded with a gun registration program it has ALWAYS later led to gun confiscation. i choose to learn from history, not repeat it.


general of generals

But if you look at shootings...?
thats not what he asked, he asked for overall crime rates. shooting wise in the US there are currently over 400 million legally owned firearms in the US.
total crimes involving a perpatraitor with a firearms 353,880.......thats less than 1% when compared to the legal gun owners. infact of the total number of gun related death including suicides and police shootings in 1999 was 28,874. thats less that .01% when compared to the number of legally owned and responsibly used firearms in the US.
then throw in the fact that on average 645,000 times a year a civilian with a firearm thwarts a crime..thats over 2% for the public good.

each nation has it's own social attitudes that affect how it deals with the issue. most of the predominantly socialist leaning democracies in western europe have chosen to disarm thier citizens.and like britain having given the criminals the edge have had an alarming increase in overall crime, while the swiss have a thriving gun culture but very little actual gun crime.

:cool:

Give everyone who hands in a firearm a ton of their favorite substance to abuse and indulge in - but make sure they don't have more weapons, otherwise we're back at the beginning (with drugged people running wild) :mp5: