Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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
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.
Actually Obama had nothing to do with it other than approving the SEALS going. The one woman who had the most to do with it had been working on finding Osama for five years, which means it dates back to Bush so he should get all the credit, not the pretender in president.
Students of history would know the only way to overturn bad laws is by treating them with open contempt, i.e. prohibition, and the northern states treatment of the fugitive slave act.
But of course in the modern era of the Total State where any civil disobedience is punished with crushing violence, some people in the 2A community actually believe following bad laws is now some kind of civic duty, like an Americanized Fuhrerprinzip. So sad.
Does some guy who shoots in his backyard with an illegal SBR really deserve to be called an "Animal"?
The average citizen commits three felonies a day without even knowing it. The entire 2A community can be reclassified as felons with a single executive order.
Sheesh. You are quite a piece of work. You are essentially defending a man who killed another human being with a gun and was in the process of committing at least two other felonies. I am gathering you believe that a person who has demonstrated he has no regard for life and is willing to use a gun to take a life is not reason enough to restrict their 2A rights. If this is what you are supporting you can't be taken seriously. But I would like to invite you to put your money where your mouth is a commit a felony and keep carrying and then argue your case from wherever you find yourself incarcerated.
Actually Obama had nothing to do with it other than approving the SEALS going. The one woman who had the most to do with it had been working on finding Osama for five years, which means it dates back to Bush so he should get all the credit, not the pretender in president.
I'd respond, but since the "only serious people believe in X" argument is only used by imbeciles, why bother...
Come back when you can actually come up with a coherent argument on why 2A rights should be conditionally granted based on your prejudices.
Very simple question that only needs a yes or no answer: Do you support a convicted killer to continue to possess a gun? Yes or no.
It is not a simple yes/no answer because a "convicted killer" could fall into several categories:
It's a very simple question unless you have a need to qualify everything to the point you did. Thanks for playing along but I want to see of dman is a credible guy or not. For the purposes of this thread should a convicted killer be allowed to possess a gun with current law being what it is?
If you are going to support the idea of a convicted killer being allowed to possess guns then you wouldn't mind if a convicted pedophile works at a day care right?
I don't think the government should make laws that restrict the exercise of rights, or limit the jobs you are allowed to have AFTER you have served your time for any crime.
So, YES, I think that the LAW should not restrict a person who has been convicted, sentenced, and has served his time to:
A) hold any job he can get hired for.
B) exercise all of his civil rights including voting, owning a gun, going to church, free speech, etc...
Furthermore, I believe we wouldn't be having this discussion if:
A) Dangerous convicted murderers were not released from prison (i.e. Were either life-without-parole or were executed)
B) Dangerous convicted predatory pedophiles were not released from prison
When talking negatively about your government becomes a Felony, will you change your opinion? Because it's that simple for it to happen.
We may vote on representatives, but we do not vote on what is and is not a felony. Is having an unregistered SBR a felony? Does some guy who shoots in his backyard with an illegal SBR really deserve to be called an "Animal"?
It's a slippery slope, my friend, and that is why the 2nd amendment does not list restrictions.
Do you support barring (for life) the second amendment to a woman who opens her husband's mail (felony in Montana)?