Fed. gun law takes down drug thug killer

[Burt Gummer]

There is a troll here. Pretty obvious who he is; no need saying (not the above post). Lonely and odd. Someone should lose their gun rights because they downloaded the latest top 40 hit lol.

Well we can agree that we all love guns and we don't want TPTB to deceitfully come up with ways to take them away.

 

[rur862]

Post Deleted.

 

[dmancornell]

Try reading it again, along with my previous post.

Do you prefer total anarchy? Because that is your only other option.

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2

I read your post, you put your faith in the judicial review (itself conducted by a government organ) as the only process required to prevent bad laws, as if the black-robed politicians will somehow be free from corruption and authoritarian tendencies. So my summary of your post is spot on, I simply removed the delusion optimism.

The prediction of total anarchy is nothing more than statist scaremongering and implies people are completely incapable of behaving properly without government supervision... an insulting view of society, to say the least. In any case, libertarians would be satisfied with constitutional government, so your point is irrelevant.

 

[mortre]

I read your post, you put your faith in the judicial review (itself conducted by a government organ) as the only process required to prevent bad laws, as if the black-robed politicians will somehow be free from corruption and authoritarian tendencies. So my summary of your post is spot on, I simply removed the delusion optimism.

The prediction of total anarchy is nothing more than statist scaremongering and implies people are completely incapable of behaving properly without government supervision... an insulting view of society, to say the least. In any case, libertarians would be satisfied with constitutional government, so your point is irrelevant.

No system is perfect, that's the way it is. Nothing ever will be.

And it's not a prediction of anarchy, it is anarchy. If you can choose what laws to follow, then so can everyone else. Including the government, so they are no longer have to be bound by the constitution.

And yes, a huge portion of society refuse to behaving, and they and their families refuse to take responsibility. That is why our country is so f'ed up as is. Government corruption, exploited welfare, social security disability, wide spread drug and alcohol abuse, crime rates. They are all symptoms of a large chunk of society's refusal to take responsibility for themselves. You can't fix that by legalizing more drugs to blame their failure on, and giving felons all the rights of law abiding citizens. But you can lay the blame for all of that on the big government handouts.

With that said, a small and limited government is what is needed to fix the problem. Yank the tit out of the mouths of the government dependents. They can either adapt and be productive members of society, or spend the rest of their life in a jail cell.

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2

 

[JGRuby]

Yup - I just dont think you have the right to someone elses work without paying for it yes we disagree on free downloads - if that makes me a troll so be it.

James Ruby

 

[Akathepriest]

Maybe if meth was sold at the pharmacy it would be cheaper and people wouldn't need to rob houses to buy it.

Oh wait, that's exactly how things worked back before the drug prohibition.

Drugs will still be just as addictive and harmful after they are allowed to be legal. I don't get how you think making it legal will make anybody prosper.

Please explain.

 

[dmancornell]

Drugs will still be just as addictive and harmful after they are allowed to be legal. I don't get how you think making it legal will make anybody prosper.

Please explain.

Because it's the government's job to make sure people prosper.

Are you a socialist?

 

[Akathepriest]

The prediction of total anarchy is nothing more than statist scaremongering and implies people are completely incapable of behaving properly without government supervision... an insulting view of society, to say the least. In any case, libertarians would be satisfied with constitutional government, so your point is irrelevant.

You really believe that corporations and small businesses will do the right thing? When they can do the cheap thing easier?

I mean, I can see small examples of this being true. But for the most part, these laws came into effect over trial and error over the last 300 years.

 

[Akathepriest]

Because it's the government's job to make sure people prosper.

Are you a socialist?

Hmm, if the government's people didn't prosper, it would be overthrown and a new one reinstated. So yeah, I would guess that its the job of that government to ensure that its people prosper.

Nope, not into socialism the last time I read the definition of it.

 

[dmancornell]

Hmm, if the government's people didn't prosper, it would be overthrown and a new one reinstated. So yeah, I would guess that its the job of that government to ensure that its people prosper.

Nope, not into socialism the last time I read the definition of it.

Government's people

OK, I'm done.

 

[rur862]

Post Deleted.

 

[Akathepriest]

Government's people

OK, I'm done.

Made a valid point, and you gave up discussion. I guess that means I win?

There are plenty of things that are addictive and harmful and still legal.

If you made them illegal they would still be addictive and harmful and in addition to that you would have an enormous black market which destabilized the country with violence.

Violence occurs because of the addictive nature of these drugs. People gotta have it, there is money to be made.

Making it legal will encourage the use so there will be more addicts all over the country. Suddenly they are broke and don't have a job because they cannot function without their drug and they begin to look for resources to purchase these drugs. Robbery, Home Invasions, Theft, ... Violence. All because they need to have their drugs, only this time since it was promoted and made legal there are many more cases of violence.

 

[dmancornell]

Made a valid point, and you gave up discussion. I guess that means I win?

Sure whatever, anyone who uses the term "government's people" is either an unrepentant statist or hopelessly delusional. Enjoy your gold star and seat on the short bus.

 

[dmancornell]

Violence occurs because of the addictive nature of these drugs. People gotta have it, there is money to be made.

Making it legal will encourage the use so there will be more addicts all over the country. Suddenly they are broke and don't have a job because they cannot function without their drug and they begin to look for resources to purchase these drugs. Robbery, Home Invasions, Theft, ... Violence. All because they need to have their drugs, only this time since it was promoted and made legal there are many more cases of violence.

Let's ban booze and cigarettes.

Your predictions have no bearing on reality whatever. Statistics from two countries that have decriminalized drugs, Holland and Portugal, show drug use actually decreased (even with the drug tourists included), along with drug-related crimes. As always, drug war fanatics rely on scaremongering to promote their agenda.

 

[Akathepriest]

Sure whatever, anyone who uses the term "government's people" is either an unrepentant statist or hopelessly delusional. Enjoy your gold star and seat on the short bus.

Thanks man. Seriously though, I highly doubt that we would be civil to one another without a governing body to tell us what is wrong and what is right in most cases.

I can see some exceptions in the sense of marijuana being illegal and fed lies about its effects through the years. But the original discussion was about a drug deal that went sour. 2x People like this are what I mean by being civil without a governing body and laws. He was looking to make easy money. He chose drugs as his venue, others might choose armed robbery. And I am pretty sure that nobody would be happy if it were just OK to go out and rob another person.

 

[Akathepriest]

Let's ban booze and cigarettes.

Your predictions have no bearing on reality whatever. Statistics from two countries that have decriminalized drugs, Holland and Portugal, show drug use actually decreased (even with the drug tourists included), along with drug-related crimes. As always, drug war fanatics rely on scaremongering to promote their agenda.

Cigarettes kill people, lets face it. Booze has a direct link to domestic abuse. Neither are anywhere near as harmful as white drugs. Both in addiction and direct damage to the brain/body.

 

[dmancornell]

Cigarettes kill people, lets face it. Booze has a direct link to domestic abuse. Neither are anywhere near as harmful as white drugs. Both in addiction and direct damage to the brain/body.

Indeed. If the government and drug war fanatics weren't hypocrites, they'd ban booze and cigarettes as well. So now they are hypocrites as well as economically ignorant, morally bankrupt and violence-prone authoritarians.

 

[rur862]

Post Deleted.

 

[Akathepriest]

Besides, how many of us need the government to tell us not to use heroin?

I just watched a poll on a news show on youtube called TYT where 6% of democrats and 15% of republicans think that Romney deserves more credit than Obama for the killing of Osama.

See where I am going with this? The number might be staggering.

 

[mortre]

Let's ban booze and cigarettes.

Cigarettes don't effect your judgement though. And booze is far from as addictive as most illicit drugs. The only thing holding weed back from being legalized is the lack of a cheap roadside test IMO.

With that said, prohibition is a poster child for your argument. And I'm not familiar enough with Europe or it's decriminalization of drugs, and/or other changes that may have influenced the crime/addiction rates.

I am familiar with how addiction to drugs like heroin can screw a persons life up though, and I fail to see any redeeming qualities. Happened to a cousin of mine and a half-uncle spent time in prison for drug related murder charges.

In the end they knew the risks involved, and chose to take them. Addicts are not victims. They go in with their eyes open and choose addiction and violence over a life where they have to work to be happy. If they don't choose drugs as their conduit for easy money and cheap thrills, they will simply choose another illegal market to exploit.

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2