Slashdot Mirror
Narco-Blogger Beats Mexico Drug War News Blackout
An anonymous reader writes "An anonymous, twentysomething blogger is giving Mexicans what they can't get elsewhere — an inside view of their country's raging drug war. Operating from behind a thick curtain of computer security, Blog del Narco in less than six months has become Mexico's go-to Internet site at a time when mainstream media are feeling pressure and threats to stay away from the story. Many postings, including warnings and a beheading, appear to come directly from drug traffickers. Others depict crime scenes accessible only to military or police."
http://www.blogdelnarco.com/
The guns that fuel Mexico's bloody drug war come from the United States of America, where we are apparently just a little too dumb for sensible gun control.
And the money to pay for them comes from drug sales.
People who pay for dope should realize that they are funding a network of gangs and cartels that murders far more people than the more familiar flavor of terrorist does. Ideally we would decriminalize the drugs and thereby yank the support out from under these people. But that ain't going to happen, so if you happen to use recreational drugs, please do your fellow man a favor and stop.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I'm a mexican living in Mexico. I won't go as far as saying that it is hell on earth, but it is getting pretty gruesome. And that's just from what you hear on the news!
Then I started diggin in alternate sources, such as blog del narco, and damn, was I missing out on all the news!
Just recently I bumped into this story about Ciudad Juarez. The story both gives hope and scares the crap out of you. No sign of that story on the two most widely spread newspapers in Mexico, though. They're just sweeping it under the rug.
I wonder if blog del narco featured it...
I hope the "second ammendment remedies" crowd is proud.
Where do you think the guns that fuel this bloodbath are coming from??
The guns that fuel Mexico's bloody drug war come from the United States of America, where we are apparently just a little too dumb for sensible gun control. I guess you never know when you will need an M-16 with a large clip to take down your own country's elected government. Nevermined the consequences or the fact that you would be dead before you even reloaded your weapon.
The drugs are completely illegal in both Mexico and the USA. How's that been working out when it comes to eliminating them? What makes you believe that making guns completely illegal in both countries is going to work out better? When we finally figure out a way to keep drugs out of highly controlled environments like prisons, maybe then we can worry about the US-Mexico border.
I'll never understand why anyone even humors positions like prohibition and gun control. We've tried both for a long time now, more than long enough to iron out any implementation errors. They simply don't work. Acknowledge that and maybe we can come up with something that might work.
Oh, and apparently tyrants everywhere do fear armed civilians. That's why Hitler and every other "successful" dictator made it a top priority to first disarm the citizens. There can be no more honest explanation of this than a hard look at what the tyrants themselves considered a threat to their rule.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
And the money to pay for them comes from drug sales.
And mexican drug dealer's best customers lie on the US side of the border.
Fuck you. Perhaps the artificial restraints by the government, and the support some of these gangs receive from the same government, is the reason for these problems.
GENERATION O98346: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig and remove a random number from the generation. T
I'll stop buying drugs as soon as everyone else stops buying diamonds.
I'm not a really pro-gun person, but really, considering they're selling something that's illegal to make, traffic and sell... I can't see them having a hard time making, trafficking or selling guns either if they were illegal.
Especially with the news of numerous corrupt police and government officials in the whole drug war, I can't see it being too hard for them to 'somehow' get a bunch of military weapons if they needed to.
Which is why you only buy locally grown.
The guns that fuel Mexico's bloody drug war come from the United States of America, where we are apparently just a little too dumb for sensible gun control.
And the money to pay for them comes from drug sales.
People who pay for dope should realize that they are funding a network of gangs and cartels that murders far more people than the more familiar flavor of terrorist does. Ideally we would decriminalize the drugs and thereby yank the support out from under these people. But that ain't going to happen, so if you happen to use recreational drugs, please do your fellow man a favor and stop.
Don't support terrorists and Cartels...
Buy only american grown weed!
Guns are easy to make, anyone with a metal lathe can make them. Even easier though is to smuggle them like drugs.
Oh SNAP! Godwin's law! and it only took 19 minutes.
http://xkcd.com/261/
I'll stop buying drugs as soon as everyone else stops buying diamonds.
Not gonna work. Buying her diamonds makes you more attractive, using drugs makes her more attractive.
Don't rock the boat.
But not good guns. If it was that easy to make reliable, accurate, durable guns then no one would ever buy them at American prices.
The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is what punches workers in the nuts.
You're using logic. That is why you aren't screaming for more gun control and getting very upset that anyone out there might disagree with this. It's probably also why you aren't pretending that there are two equally viable viewpoints on this issue when in fact it's very simple: one is realistic and based on logic while the other is like a fairy tale and based on emotion and whim.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
You should be very careful to distinguish how the guns come from the US...
The US is, in fact, a pretty decent place for civilians to buy moderately zesty firearms without too much hassle. However, the US government also has a habit of handing out all sorts of military-grade goodies to governments it considers to be friends and allies.
Mexican security forces, for reasons that aren't all that hard to understand, has had some trouble stemming corruption and even the flow of former personnel into cartel forces. "Los Zetas" for instance, are largely ex-security forces, now working for the cartels.
Obviously, there is no point in arguing that none of the guns being used in Mexico are of US origin. That is almost certainly wrong, I suspect a reasonable percentage of them are. The question, though, is are they diverted hardware from the American civilian market or are they American military aid being lost because of Mexican government corruption? Both types are "American Guns"; but they have very different policy implications...
But.. how would you know? Its not like there's an FDA or DoA seal you can look for....
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Legalize it all damn ready. Seriously, executive order, make it happen.
1. Drugs are easy to create. No special equipment is needed to make drugs. It's like "cooking" recipe ;)
2. Guns are difficult to manufacture. Even an AK-47 requires stamping press to produce. Weapons used in the Mexican drug war require specialized factories to produce the weapons *and* the ammunition. But controlling access to guns would not eliminate the problem of guns being used by drug cartels. Well, at least stuff they couldn't get from elsewhere (3rd world black market, you can apparently get anything there
Taking guns away would not fix the problem. Drugs are the cause, violence to control their trade and hence profits is the result. Gun violence is the result, not the cause. (And I'm pro-gun control, but even I can see that guns are not the cause of violence!)
If the goal is to get rid of the drug cartels in Mexico, make drugs FREE in special drug dispensaries or sanitariums in the US. They would still be illegal outside such centers (I don't want to come across addicts on crack on the highway, thank you very much). Addicts could then get high there, but would only be allowed to leave once "sober". This would result in,
1. drastic reduction of crimes committed by addicts to try to get their fix
2. drug cartels would not have a reason to exist anymore
But that would be too common sense, I guess?
I debated on whether to use my mod points to mod this comment down as a troll, or to forgo the ego trip and answer the question.
The answer, as it turns out, is "not from the U.S."
Although the Mexican gov't has repeatedly asserted that U.S. is to blame for the flow of guns into Mexico, some forget that the U.S. has sent millions of firearms to various Central and South American factions, firearms that are readily available in Mexico (and not as a result of any 2nd Amendment rights bestowed on U.S. citizens). Or for your consideration: The blatant distortion of facts by which Mexican officials who, while claiming that 80-90% of the arms in Mexico come from the U.S. fail to mention that the number is extrapolated from a small sample of guns sent to the U.S. that could be traced. This fallacy is substantiated by numbers reported by the ATF in which Mexican authorities confiscated 29,000 firearms in 2008, of which only 5,000 were traceable to the U.S.
You might want to head down to the local range/gun shop before you make a statement like that. Most of the guns you see there are going to be foreign made. The highest quality ones in the store are probably israeli or czech, even.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
The numbers seem muddied by the data availible for consideration. NPR ran a story in 2005 which noted that
In the Firearms Trafficking Report the American Government Accountability Office stated that
Fox challenged the selection bias of the numbers, finding that "83 percent of the guns found at crime scenes in Mexico could not be traced to the U.S." I should probably have done a little more digging for a better source than Fox but if you're interested some google mining should uncover something more reliable.
All it takes is a C&C machine and a few other pieces of tooling and you can most certainly create a homemade "gun lab". And they'll get their guns from somewhere. There are plenty of arms dealers out there and if these people can smuggle drugs, smuggling arms is not much different. I wouldn't be surprised if more arms came from Brazil or other south american countries that are producing Galil & Fal clones.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
Can't buy M16's or other full auto/select fire weapons off the shelf in the US.
Please define "sensible" civilian gun control in the US and explian how it will prevent criminal gun use in Mexico? Fact - Civilians in the US cannot leagally own M-16s or any other fully automatic weapon without a FFA licence.
"I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
I bought my first Glock 17 for $600 right before the clip ban during Clinton's reign. Just bought a second one, same model for $450 a few months ago. (The orginal is fine even after 10,000+ rounds through it. I just wanted a another.) Yep those high prices are killing me.
Guns are stupid easy to make take a look out there at all the 3party parts suppliers and you'll soon realize even if they closed down every single major gun manufacturer it would hardly slow the supply of parts and fully assembled weaspons.
Drug abuse is a social problem and should be treated as such. Dope fiends don't care about lying to their friends and family to score more drugs, why do you think they would care about strangers in Mexico? The real people who are funding the network of gangs and cartels are those who vote for(or appoint) politicians who support drug prohibition. End of story. The cards are entirely in their hands, dope fiends will get drugs one way or the other.
Drugs are the cause.
Bzzt! Drug prohibition is the cause.
It's really quite sad that the world learned nothing from the US' futile attempt to outlaw alcohol in the 1920's. No one is saying drugs are good. They are quite bad, but making them illegal makes them much, much worse. I wish politicians didn't care about looking "soft on crime" in dealing with the drug war, and they could actually push to try to overturn this quixotic war. Make them legal and undercut the illegal drug trade which is fueled by their artificially inflated illegal prices. We saw all the same stuff during alcohol prohibition. The extreme corruption, the gang wars, the bad moonshine that made people go permanently blind, people using/selling more potent forms because it's easier to transport. It's all avoidable, but no one will push the issue because they're instantly shot down for being "soft on drugs"
I die a little inside every time I hear a story about drug gangs basically taking over cities in Mexico and kidnapping people. Think of the people women whose husbands have been kidnapped and they receive pieces of them with ransom notes asking for money that they don't have. This is what could've happened if they kept up alcohol prohibition. Drug prohibition is just as ill-conceived. The better we do reducing supply, the higher the prices go, and the more vicious the drug gangs get in protecting their business.
It's a terrible cycle, and one that can only be broken by regulation. They need to make drugs legal through special outlets stocked with health care workers, where people can safely obtain their drugs and use the proceeds to pay for the addiction specialists and treatment centers. There's nothing we can do except address the problem of addiction, and treat such users as patients, not criminals. Is it perfect? Probably not, but it's a start.
When a prisoner can make a gun in a high security prison yes.. guns can be made pretty much anywhere.
Was that particular gun a great one? No.. but it was made under some pretty serious materials control and without the advantage of some very helpful tools, under what are supposed to be some pretty watchful eyes. Firearms are a genie that are well past being out of the lamp. Closing your eyes and wishing really hard won't make them go away.
I don't expect morality, equality, consistency, or justice from the law. I expect only legality.
I hope the "second ammendment remedies" crowd is proud.
Where do you think the guns that fuel this bloodbath are coming from??
The guns that fuel Mexico's bloody drug war come from the United States of America, where we are apparently just a little too dumb for sensible gun control. I guess you never know when you will need an M-16 with a large clip to take down your own country's elected government. Nevermined the consequences or the fact that you would be dead before you even reloaded your weapon.
Since they are armed with military weapons, I guess you must be in favor of disarming the military. That would disarm 1.5M Americans with weapons. Or are you more worried about the 10,000 civilians who own automatic weapons?
In case anyone's interested and knows their Spanish, un enlace: El Blog del Narco.
Most of them are being shipped south across the border. They need something to haul back after they sell all the drugs up here, after all.
I'll never understand why anyone even humors positions like prohibition and gun control. We've tried both for a long time now, more than long enough to iron out any implementation errors. They simply don't work. Acknowledge that and maybe we can come up with something that might work.
Prohibition didn't work, but we still regulate alcohol. Drunk driving, drinking age, liquor licenses, and more. Disarming the citizenry is a bad idea, but that doesn't mean guns can't be regulated.
AK-47s are made from stamped parts and deliberately designed around loose tolerances. A moderately skilled gun enthusiast machinist could probably turn out a respectable version given good plans.
1: Most guns in Mexico come from central america or from the mexican givernment/military. See those pictures of the drug lords with H&K G3 rifles or MP5 submachine guns? Yeah, those couldn't have come from America. We can't get those here. (Well, we can, but they're 30k or more)
2. Very few americans own M-16's. As in less than a thousand most likely. Why? Because the process of purchasing a fully automatic firearm is such a pain that most people don't go through with it. Do you want the ATF to have a sheet of paper where you signed a waiver allowing them to walk into your home at any point, on ant day, without notice to search your home? Neither do most of us, and that's EXACTLY what you have to do to own a fully automatic firearm in this country.
Those of us who do own full auto firearms fall into three categories:
A: Law abiding citizens who like firearms and enjoy shooting. We pay our taxes, don't dream of murdering people, and largely consider our autos to be investments much like classic cars or sports memorabillia.
B: Criminals and thugs who don't go through the proper, legal channels to purchase their weapons (I use the word weapon here intentionally, as it is these people who consider their firearms to be weapons, and intend on using them.) Outlawing firearms will not affect these people in the least as it is already illegal for them to own these firearms. When guns DO move across the border (not often as Mexico throws anyone entering their country with even a single round of ammo into jail for 20+ years) it is these outlaws and criminals who do the moving and selling.
C: Fringe elements made up of crazy mountain men and people who consider their friends to be a militia of some sort and are still out in the woods each weekend preparing for the Soviet Union to invade their small town. Really? Are you worried about these people taking over your country? They aren't a threat to anything except their local dentist's children getting the money for college... Sure, they're vocal and love making a spectacle, but they're on every watch list in the country and are largely law abiding citizens like group A. Those who fall into group B don't usually last more than a year or two before the ATF is at their door taking their toys to the furnace and hauling them off to federal prison for drug or firearms charges.
Being scared of an armed citizenry is about as sane as being scared of dogs. Sure, there are bad apples out there, but just because one in ten dogs have bitten someone doesn't mean that your neighbors lab is about to rip into your leg as you walk by...
I carry a pistol every day. You know how many people I've ever shot? none.
The other day I was at the grocery store and a woman saw my pistol. When she noticed that the hammer was back (the proper way to carry a 1911 is with a round in the chamber, the hammer back, and the safety on) she asked me "Isn't that dangerous."
My answer to her: "Yes, that's the point of owning a pistol. They're dangerous when you need them to be."
She smiled, got the point, and went about her day.
--Forest C. Adcock--
...83 percent of the guns found at crime scenes in Mexico could not be traced to the U.S.
It may be relevant to ask "of the guns that could be traced, what percentage were traced to the US?" The answer to that question appears to be, "most of them," specifically 87% as cited above, or 95% as cited several years ago. Without some evidence to the contrary, the guns that could not be traced at all might be from anywhere, the US included. The inability to trace the weapon does not preclude it coming from the U.S. Rather, without more information it's hard to say where it came from. More information, even information doesn't definitively tell us where the gun came from, could shed a little light on the issue. For example, knowing the model and age of the weapon, or where/how it was confiscated, might help someone guess, but we don't seem to have that information, and it would at any rate be difficult to analyze even if we did have the information.
It may be fair to speculate that FOX is choosing this statistic to confuse the subject, implying as it does so that most of the guns aren't from the U.S. even though the data do not support that conclusion -- the data merely fail to absolutely preclude the possibility. (I doubt many of the regular FOX viewers I know would be interested in this subtle but crucial distinction. I get the feeling that a lot of people watch FOX because they enjoy the comfy anti-reality bubble it projects in to their living rooms.)
Bah, that Marijuana stuff's for hippies and gangsters.
The top-heavy distibution of wealth in the U.S. requires more of a real executive's drug, cocaine, which is not grown here. But I can tell you where it comes from, and how it gets here!
If it were legalised and taxed there would be.
Look, it's very simple. I'm a Mexican living in Mexico, I also know more cities of the us than most us citizens. Drugs are consumed in Mexico (at a tenth of the price, btw), by some people and that ain't never going to go away neither here nor there in the us.
We cannot, because your government will not let us, decriminalize consumption in Mexico. And it wouldn't do as much good as it could because if they aren't legal up there then most of the Dough that comes here, that buys guns and officials and blood, will still be puouring in.
We need an international effort to legalize personal production of all personally produceable drugs. Not public consumption, not a blanket for junkies, but just a way for people to use their freedom in NOT helping the cartels.
As a side note, we could also start subsidizing legal drug prime matter, such as opium poppy and coca plant so that pfizer and all those Bauer fuckers would buy from the guys that now make the prime matter for illegal drugs. If you've ever seen a porter business analysis you will see that this two pronged strategy hits at both sides of the drug cartel business.
NO SIG
I know you want to sweeten the pot for the politicians a little with the "tax it" business, but please don't give them any ideas. Balancing out a good idea with a bad one is a terrible compromise.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
First off, the weapons don't fuel the drug war. The excessively high black market profits of drug prohibition fuel the drug war. Firearms just happen to be among the tools used to wage the war. Any automatic weapons being used by Mexican drug cartels are not coming from the legal civilian firearms market in either the US or Mexico. Even the lying sad pandas over at the Brady Bunch & VPC know that. They just have no problem lying and exploiting the situation for their political and personal financial gain, however small it may be.
You aren't Paul Helmke, Dennis Henigan, or Josh Sugarmann, are you, Mr. Anonymous Coward? Because if you aren't any of the aforementioned Joyce Foundation sock puppets, I would expect you could manage to cease with the baseless accusations, and the flying off the handle, and the demonizing of an inanimate object, for just long enough to read some of the results of a simple Google search.
Then again, maybe you don't care about the truth. Maybe you just enjoy being part of the problem. Keep on agitating and lying. Thankfully most Americans are wise to your subterfuge.
Bring back Sirius Punk!
I respect your opinion, but it's stupid...
Drugs have only been forbidden for less than a hundred years... We were fine before prohibition, and now children are being mutilated in your backyard. And believe me, this is a hundred billion dollar business, it WILL creep up to the us.
Milton fried man in americas drug forum (YouTube for it) said it best: it is prohibition that makes this business so profitable.
NO SIG
Yes and no. The us prohibits gun exports and yet American citizens find a way to sell them and pass them through the border.
NO SIG
Strictly speaking, the actual cause is the demand for the drugs. Making it illegal exacerbates the problem, but one could envision a scenario where the drugs were legal but cartels still ruled. One cannot envision such a scenario where there is no demand.
Why is GP labeled troll? Simply because he has a different opinion?
No. We need to recognize that banning drugs encourages violence. Banning guns won't work because the cat's out of the bag, and drug cartels can easily get more guns from other countries. Unless you're suggesting Team America: World Police remove guns from all countries. It's the demand for drugs in the US that funnels money into the violence in Mexico. Trying to control both is just fighting two losing wars instead of one. Did you pay attention in history to how well a two-front war worked out for Germany?
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
1: Most guns in Mexico come from central america or from the mexican givernment/military. See those pictures of the drug lords with H&K G3 rifles or MP5 submachine guns? Yeah, those couldn't have come from America. We can't get those here. (Well, we can, but they're 30k or more)
2. Very few americans own M-16's. As in less than a thousand most likely. Why? Because the process of purchasing a fully automatic firearm is such a pain that most people don't go through with it. Do you want the ATF to have a sheet of paper where you signed a waiver allowing them to walk into your home at any point, on ant day, without notice to search your home? Neither do most of us, and that's EXACTLY what you have to do to own a fully automatic firearm in this country.
Just to clarify, very few Americans own fully automatic weapons because it has been impossible to legally register one for civilian ownership since 1986. The supply is fixed and thus the prices for those that have been registered are extremely high. Also, owning an NFA firearm (or suppressor) certainly does not void your rights under the 4th amendment. The BATF may be able to demand to inspect your registered items but they definitely do not have a free pass to search your home or any other personal property without permission or cause.
It's not about logic it's about social norms, in the US it's always been common for someone to have a handgun in the house, in Australia it's always been frowned on by society (even when it was perfectly legal to own a gun for self-defense). The gun laws in both countries are simply a reflection of the norms that each society had already imposed on itself.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Thats the thing though - even if its only 19% as they say, that's still a massive amount. Certainly not quite as emotive when yelled about on opinion-news, but clearly a troublingly high amount.
I support responsible gun ownership, but I feel carrying a cocked, *loaded* pistol around crosses a line somewhere. We're civilians, it's ok to be prepared but you don't have to be that prepared. May I suggest purchasing a sidearm that doesn't need to have one in the chamber and cocked, it'd make everyone around you a lot more comfortable.
Because he occupies an interesting space where both the police and the drug cartels are using him as a front for their media outreach campaign. As long as he's useful to both sides, and not too much of an annoyance, he'll be played by both.
anyone?
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
Most of them are being shipped south across the border. They need something to haul back after they sell all the drugs up here, after all.
You would make a great truck broker (booking loads for the return trip), but the weapons that the cartels are using are not readily available in the US. They are far easier to acquire from the Mexican army deserters and the southern border.
Bring back Sirius Punk!
It isn't dangerous. Especially not if he is carrying a series 80 1911. If you like, see if you can find someone with one that will let you wear it for a few days. You don't have to chamber it or anything. Just cock it, flip on the safety, and wear it. Go jogging if you like. Do yardwork. Home improvement. Whatever you like. You will find, at the end of the day, that the hammer is still locked back.
You could, even, leave the safety off. The sear is pretty aggressive. It won't let go if you don't pull the trigger. The safety is there to be extra sure, not as the only means of safety.
Modern firearms that fire without a trigger pull are poorly built, poorly maintained, or they've been garage gunsmithed.
I don't expect morality, equality, consistency, or justice from the law. I expect only legality.
That's why Hitler and every other "successful" dictator made it a top priority to first disarm the citizens.
Bullshit. Citation or it didn't happen. For your info: Hitler REARMED Germans after the western world thought it wise to limit what kind of weapons Germans could produce.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Milton fried man in americas drug forum (YouTube for it) said it best: it is prohibition that makes this business so profitable.
You'd almost think we would have learned something from Prohibition.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
But.. how would you know? Its not like there's an FDA or DoA seal you can look for....
Sticky Icky doesn't come from mexico.
You are missing the point.
The point is: The NRA and other weapons-industry lobby groups don't care about the Second Amendment, they care about PROFITS. And it is profitable to use the Second Amendment as part of a straw-man argument to keep states and/or the federal government from enacting legislation which would both PRESERVE the Second Amendment AND make it more DIFFICULT for Mexican drug cartels (and probably felons here in the U.S.) to purchase MASS QUANTITIES of weapons.
Here is an analogy: Freedom of speech is still preserved when there are laws against things like yelling "fire" in crowded theaters. Similarly, there COULD be legislation which would preserve gun rights and also make it harder for guns to be funnelled into the Mexican drug wars. Except that, because it is extremely PROFITABLE, the weapons companies which fund the NRA et al don't want to see that happen. And, of course, "gun rights" (i.e., the cynical manipulation of genuine sentiment, as opposed to actual legislation and political action to guarantee our Second Amendment rights) is red meat for the base of conservative politicians. So there is most likely a political calculus involved as well.
Note that NOTHING I am talking about has to do with encroaching on Second Amendment rights.
If this doesn't make sense to you, then either you don't understand or you refuse to.
Please define "sensible" civilian gun control in the US and explian how it will prevent criminal gun use in Mexico? Fact - Civilians in the US cannot leagally own M-16s or any other fully automatic weapon without a FFA licence.
Sweet! I am a country boy cum suburbanite and I have a couple of pygmy goats as pets. That ought to get me an FFA license, no?
Kidding aside, you are spot on. Without passing a lengthy background check and other steps, including a federal tax, one cannot easily purchase automatic weapons in the US. Furthermore, thanks to the unconstitutional Hughes Amendment to FOPA, the prices for transferable automatic weapons are artificially hyper-inflated. Mexican drug gangs can buy automatic weapons far cheaper from every source but the heavily regulated US.
Bring back Sirius Punk!
I know you want to sweeten the pot for the politicians a little with the "tax it" business, but please don't give them any ideas. Balancing out a good idea with a bad one is a terrible compromise.
ISTM that from a public interest standpoint they should legalize it and tax it as high as they can without creating a black market.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
It seemed to work for us Canadians, personally not putting the powers life and death into the hands of every punk on the streets just makes sense to me.
You cannot stop all murders but if you make it so that it is harder for people to kill other people then just pointing and pulling a trigger I think it is a good thing.
and sure giving less guns to citizens can make it harder to kill the leaders of the country, but do you want single/small groups of people to be able to kill the leader of their country? Their are always dissidents no matter how fair and good the rule is do, so does it make sense to give them the power to effect an entire nation?
but in the end guns are no different then any other weapons conceptually, the point is were do you stop? Maybe no one should be allowed anything that is only used as a lethal/highly damaging weapon, maybe normal everyday people would be able to own automatic rifles and military explosives; Maybe they should even be allowed tactical missiles or weapons of mass destruction.
All I know is I do not want to live anywhere near anyone that has a weapon that will almost assume my death any time he chooses.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
No, but the conversion is so easy that the illiterate and stoned gangsters are buying retail black rifles from the US, and doing the auto conversion in their garages. Not.
The next thing to remember is to put next things next.
I wonder how traceable a gun with no serial number is.
I assume that it's standard procedure to remove the gun's serial number In order to protect the gun purchaser in the United States.
How many of the guns in your biased article's survey have serial numbers?? Oh wait, your sources are shills for the weapon manufacturers and the NRA. And you believe it cuz you like guns. Good for you.
American guns are causing an epic bloodbath in Mexico. Not just assault rifles that can easily be converted to full automatic. Handguns are also flooding accross the border from the United States.
The NRA has blood on it's hands, and the people who instinctively oppose serious gun control should think about how much blood is being spilled by American guns.
Even if your phoney statistics were based in reality, almost every gun used to kill an American in the United States was purchased legally at some point.
No, the GP is correct. It is prohibition and the resulting corruption of the authorities that is causing the bloodshed. We haven't learned the lesson of alcohol prohibition yet. So the war will continue until then. This is not an NRA issue at all. It should be a lesson of how power corrupts. Legalize now, and the gangs will be out of business before the week is out.
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
If they legalized marijuana I would only buy from American farmers, and grow my own. I know right now most of the marijuana coming in to Michigan is from Canada, funny I don't hear about drug cartels fighting in the streets up there.
Horror & SciFi Erotic Nudes
How many alcohol cartels are out killing people right now? Only where there is prohibition do you have this problem. The demand will always be there. In fact it's possible the cartels are the ones who threaten politicians if they don't impose prohibition to begin with. Oh damn! I just made your point. Well, I suppose we could organize a boycott... Then again you could read up on the Opium Wars of the 1850s..
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
But, I totally agree. Legalize so they can cut back on other taxes and go to a complete sin tax. Do drugs, pay a sin tax. Smoke, pay a sin tax. Drink, pay a sin tax. Eat fast food, pay a sin tax. Fuck this nanny state shit. Tax the fuck out of people that want to do things that are unhealthy for them.
I no longer do drugs, drink, or smoke. But yes, I have done all of the above and for a large number of years. Hell, I paid the cigerate tax all the way up to last year. So, I know how much it costs.
Fuck, they wouldn't cut back on other taxes. Shit, I'm still fucked by the nanny state.
Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Time
There are not semi-automatic M-16's. There are AR style rifles and plenty of them, but those are not M-16's. That would be like calling a buick a Porche just because it has 4 tires and an engine...
--Forest C. Adcock--
I want them to legalize this so they tax you fools. Fuck it, want to do drugs. Pay taxes on them just like the legal drugs that others are taxed on. You know, nicotine and alcohol.
Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Time
I agree. And please also change your name from FAdcock.
"Hi I am a FAdcock and to prove it I carry a lethal weapon to the grocery store."
Cryonics - Keep cool and carry on.
We need an international effort to legalize personal production of all personally produceable drugs. Not public consumption, not a blanket for junkies, but just a way for people to use their freedom in NOT helping the cartels.
I'm not taking a stance in the "legalize it" debate. But I would point out that you already have a way to use your freedom to not help the cartels. You could choose not to purchase drugs. I'm not saying that it's necessarily reasonable to ask people that do drugs to stop because of the behind the scenes horrors, but to say they DON'T have that ability is untrue.
That's exactly what I did the first month I owned the pistol. I kept it on my belt, fully cocked, with no round in the chamber just to see if it would stay on. In the 4 years I have carried the pistol, I have only found it off safety 3 or 4 times where I did not intentionally take the safety off. All of those times I heard the click and re safetied it.
I own a newer model 1911 with a sturdy slide safety and an internal drop safety (what is lacking in older models, making them very dangerous)
And to respond to the person who said that carrying one unloaded was crossing a line: When people do use handguns for self defense in this country, it is very rare for them to have the time to chamber a round beforehand. It's not like you can call "time out" to a mugger so you can load your pistol. Ayoob is famous for stating that "only hits count." but just the same every second counts.
--Forest C. Adcock--
The California legislature has estimated that taxing the previously untaxed domestically grown $14 billion marijuana market would produce $1.4 billion a year,[4] Taxing marijuana, supporters say, could be a smart way to help alleviate pressure on the state budget.[5]
Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Time
"but one could envision a scenario where the drugs were legal but cartels still ruled."
See Oakland and realize it's already happened.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Between this and Wikileaks, what's Big Brother supposed to do? It was supposed to be his game. Looks like he fumbled the ball, and the average Joe ran with it. At least, that's how it looks for now...
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
"The top-heavy distibution of wealth in the U.S. requires more of a real executive's drug, cocaine, which is not grown here"
Some if it IS grown here, for pharmaceutical production. Live plant stock is provided by Enaco S.A.
I just provided them with a couple of hydroponic production sheds - coca is still quite legal and widespread in Peru, and the entire Andes mountain region has a huge market of coca teas, granola bars, cookies, etc.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
GP falls prey to the usual trap of those "not acquainted with real history", projecting what they think a dictator would do onto real people and events. P is correct: and if I recall correctly the German Army was practicing maneuvers with shovels instead of guns, and their Air Force was a few unpowered gliders after WWI. Let's take a look at...
The Germans rearmed after Hitler and crew took power, and put idle and failing factories back to work after the Depression. There were more guns than had ever been in Germany before.
Horror & SciFi Erotic Nudes
"Can't buy M16's or other full auto/select fire weapons off the shelf in the US."
Excuse me? There's a fully-automatic Browning .380 machine gun, fully functional with ammunition box, for sale in a pawn shop in Memphis right next door to the Hickory Ridge Mall.
Only thing you need is a Federal Firearms Permit and you can pick it right up off the floor.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
What ended the black market in liquor was the corner liquor store that sells to anyone, without question. If you have an ID that says you are 18, they can sell to you. And there is always a way to get someone else to buy for you if you aren't 18.
The only way we get out of the black market in drugs is for there to be a corner drug store without any restrictions. And end drug tests for employment. Open and legal drug consumption for all.
If it's a Colt AR-15 you don't need to do jack to it, just smack it hard enough and you've got bump-fire automatic.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
We cannot, because your government will not let us, decriminalize consumption in Mexico.
I think you guys just did about a year ago.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Drugs have only been forbidden for less than a hundred years... We were fine before prohibition, and now children are being mutilated in your backyard.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars
Bullshit. Ignorant misstatement of history. Hitler disarmed the people. He rearmed the German army, which was not supposed to happen after WWI. Two very different things.
Buy only american grown weed!
That's pretty hard to get in Mexico
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
I agree with you on the one hand. Drug abuse is a social/moral problem which the government has no right controlling. That is, at least to the point where it doesn't hurt a second party. In other words, as much as I think that recreational drug use is foolishness, if there were laws heavily criminalising any unwelcome drug exposure (second hand smoke, drugs being slipped to people, etc.), then I would gladly support legalizing all drugs. It is only that very lack of such laws that convince me to support anti-drug legislation. As it stands, if somebody exposes me to their pot cloud, I can have them arrested for drug use. However if it were legal, then I would have no recourse. Of course, trying to convince dope addicts to support common sense legislation is a lost cause. Therefore, I will continue to support anti-drug laws.
There are 10 commandments: 01)Thou shalt love the Lord Thy God 10)Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.Matt22:34-40
So I actually agree with the general point of your post. I was raised hunting and shooting and I agree that prohibition is a losing strategy (although I vehemently disagree that it's necessary to routinely carry a loaded weapon around for your personal safety, but that's an argument for another day). But I'll play devil's advocate because there are a couple things I disagree with.
The only purpose of a firearm is to kill/maim. They are weapons. Always. It's what they are designed for. There is absolutely no other practical use for them.
Usually the targets aren't human, and usually gun owners don't use them to commit crimes, but that's what they are. Suggesting that there are certain cases where an operational firearm is *not* a weapon is insincere. As a gun owner, you should always be aware of the fact that your gun is a machine designed to kill.
I'm not so much worried about them taking over the country, but to say that militia movements aren't a threat is definitely not true. A good example being the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995. Also, many militia movements in rural areas are closely associated with white supremacist groups. I grew up in rural Eastern Oregon/Idaho and those groups are not all talk. They are very serious, and they do carry out violent attacks against minorities when they think they can get away with it. I think it's justified that the feds monitor these groups.
I just thought of the potential tax on marijuana as a general sales tax. It doesn't sit with me to use it to reduce budget problems per se, well, it doesn't normally sit with me to use a single tax to support a budget that can't support itself without said tax's help.
I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
I for one volunteer to stop my selfish drug taking behavior. So now I don't have to take any responsibility for what happens down there. Mexico has extremely strict gun control laws. Why don't they just enforce them?
That we can modify the Constitution to enforce morality?
I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
That's because they're Canadians, there's something wrong with them. Some of those sick jerks will even wish you a good day if you so much as look at them.
I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
We are seeing out of control drug wars in Mexico and some of the Caribbean islands as well. It is completely idiotic to assume that this can not happen in America as well.
This problem needs a cure before it gets worse. First we need to militarize our border and use all military tactics to keep intruders out. We need a good national ID card for everyone in the nation. And we need to be far, far harsher on those who use drugs as well as those that sell or smuggle them. First offenders for drug use need severe enough punishments that their entire lives will be conspicuously effected. For example forced labor on every weekend for the rest of their lives for simple possession would send a message. Or perhaps we could impose economic sanctions that would force a one time offender to labor for minimum wage for the rest of their lives. Second offenders should be executed. Our future is in our hands. And as far as being kind and gentle goes just how kind has liberal punishment been for the people in Mexico who now must fear bullets flying or heads being taken for the slightest objection to drug selling.
My name is not FAdcock. It's FCAdcock. I use the middle name in there...
So what does your F stand for?
--Forest C. Adcock--
I haven't had time to read the whole thing, a Google search gives this link: http://www.lassensharpshooters.com/article-nazilaw.pdf. While I don't have the time at the moment to read the whole thing, it seems like it might provide the citations which you ask for. The whole thing could be bogus, but it seems to reference it's position well. I intend to look into it further myself. Even if Hitler did rearm some of it's (at that point were they Nazi?) citizens, he certainly had no intentions of letting the captured countries have that right. Regardless, banning individual arms has throughout history been with the intention of subjugating the populace.
There are 10 commandments: 01)Thou shalt love the Lord Thy God 10)Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.Matt22:34-40
I don't disagree that all firearms are designed to kill, but so are mouse traps and we don't call them weapons. Although Wikipedia agrees with you, I prefer to make a distinction between tools and weapons.
My deer rifle is designed to harvest animals. It is a tool. My pocket knife is designed to open boxes. It is also a tool. Either could be used to kill humans in a pinch, but that is not their intended use. My AR-15 and 1911 are weapons. I will never take my AR hunting, nor do I plan on using my pistol to kill a deer. They are designed and intended to take the life of another human if the need arises. No, it is not my goal in life to kill another human, but it doesn't take long to realize that people are unpredictable and do stupid things all the time.
The OKC bombing wasn't really carried out by a militia per se. Two people aren't a militia. They are a group of misguided fools intent on murder. Had it happened after 2001 we would call those individuals terrorists, not bombers.
--Forest C. Adcock--
It's not the drugs. At worst you can say that drugs exacerbate the problem. Mexico has a lot of other problems they need to fix besides drugs. If it were just drugs, then Canada would be much more violent than they are now, because of the vast quantities of drugs produced in that region.
Qxe4
Just out of curiosity, what do people who live out in the middle of nowhere do to defend themselves against thieves? It's one thing when the police are minutes away in the city, but in the outback, I'm sure that's not always the case.
Qxe4
Hmmm...well you certainly have a strange definition of the word weapon. Just because you only use your .270 for deer hunting doesn't mean that it's an entirely different device from your AR-15. From a functional point of view they are nearly identical.
Do you actually treat them differently or is this just a semantic point in your head? I assume you probably treat them exactly the same as far as making sure they're properly unloaded, secured, etc. when you are not using them.
And your solution is that all of these people should carry a weapon that is ready to fire at all times? Or do you consider yourself above all the other stupid and unpredictable people?
Legalizing and controlling a few things would dry up these sources of income for those drug cartels a lot faster, how about you ask your government to make a few decisions in relation to drugs that make sense? Legalizing marijuana in other countries has nearly eliminated it as a gateway drug to using other things and has seen a reduction in the use of those things.
People seriously just want an option or two. If they have a choice they have an illusion of control and of the rules making sense. When you blanket ban a whole truckload of things including things that don't make sense to ban, people pay less attention to laws in that realm period, its human nature.
Most people by this point know that marijuana is largely banned for religious reasons, and that theres really zero evidence for it being a dangerous drug(have to smoke your body weight to OD on the stuff! Alcohol if you chug a 40 ouncer for most people thats enough to put you 10 toes up!) So what are they going to think about what the government spouts about all of the other drugs? They're banning and very blatantly lying about one, so the others probably aren't that bad either right? Of course this is wrong, but its what goes through a lot of peoples heads when they go to get some weed from their local dealer and he offers to sell them some coke or something instead. A few tries and bam, hooked on one of the hardcore drugs... separate the source and kill the bullshit and more people would never get addicted. Your own police officers have told you repeatedly that legalizing a whole slew of things is a GOOD IDEA(http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php?name=News&topic=2). (http://copssaylegalize.blogspot.com/2010/05/press-release-deas-senate-testimony.html)
So, stop asking your fellow man for something thats not going to change as people have been doing recreational drugs for a very very long time, and start asking your government for the changes that are needed to minimize its harmful impact on society everywhere.
My only problem with the Cig tax is all the complaints that its way too high, but then theres all the evidence that shows that it isn't even high enough to cover the health problems created by it.
Granted, I'm from Canada, and its more of a problem here since the taxes on cigs more directly pay the health care bills of the folks sucking them back, but still, our cig tax is higher, and still not high enough. They have gotten it a lot closer to enough in recent years though. I think the last time I saw them do a study on it, the total was sitting around 70% of the estimated health care costs(purely related to cigs) were taken care of by the cig taxes.
It has gotten so bad that they're close to letting doctors here in a lot of provinces refuse to treat you if you smoke, purely on the basis that you smoke. Its actually a fair policy. You're doing something thats very very bad for you, willfully, that is going to increase work load to treat you in any way. Certain anesthetics will outright kill you because of reactions to cig chemicals, the ones that will work without killing you have a much higher chance of killing you. Your BP and other stats are going to be messed up and harder to use as indicators of anything... theres just so many problems related to it.
I'm not saying ban it, I'm just saying make the taxes on certain products reflective of their real costs.
and their Air Force was a few unpowered gliders after WWI
And even today, Germany makes the best sailplanes.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
This reminds me of one of my favorite quotes. I can't remember where it is from, but it illustrates a point very well.
"I will stop carrying a firearm when I can fit a cop in this holster."
It takes seconds to die. It takes minutes for a police officer to respond to a call.
--Forest C. Adcock--
As to the first point, my answer is sorta both. It's a point I make in my head. Sure, the basics are slightly different between my .270 (actually, a .358 win) and my AR, but they both do basically the same thing. Point, click, bang.... I'm not the only person who does this though. Take automatic knives for instance: It is illegal to carry an automatic knife of any size, and yet perfectly legal to carry a 4 inch folder. Both do the same thing, but one is considered to be a weapon while the other is not. (although I still carry an auto. Most police officers who have seen it on me ask to play with it. They realize someone with a legal handgun is not likely to commit a crime with an illegal knife)
And yes, I would love to see a world in which all people of sound mind who are willing do carry a firearm. There would be much less violence. (well, after the first week or so of darwanian murder) I do consider myself to be above stupid, unpredictable people. Chances are, you probably do. It's perfectly normal to consider yourself to be saner than the mass of society. Ever hear of Pack Mentality? Groups act as groups, without individual thinking. That makes people unpredictable and dangerous.
--Forest C. Adcock--
I cannot envision a world where there is no demand for recreational drugs.
I can. Stop raising generations of people who believe that the only acceptable state of a human being is happiness, and they will live normal lives doing whatever they will find interesting.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
"100 years ago there was no way to internationally distribute drugs on a large scale."
Oh yes, there was:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars
And also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca_cola#Coca_.E2.80.94_cocaine
And please don't tell me modern art, music and culture could have evolved the way they did without recreational drug use. I don't care about "the children" for that reason alone, because I can not and will not protect everyone's children from all dangers. This is not anyone's responsibility but their parent's and no one but them can ever hope to fulfill that but them.
The liquor store on the corner sells hard spirits. 40%, 80%, you name it. One small bottle would kill a child. We sell it to adults only. If anyone gives it to a kid that dies, they go to jail for the rest of their lives.
The gas station sells highly flammable, toxic liquids. A kid could easily burn or kill themselves with that stuff. We sell it to adults only, same deal. We also have cars, power tools, gas-fired stoves, sharp knives, open fireplaces, barbecue pits and lawn darts. And somehow we only outlawed the lawn darts because they looked like kid's toys, instead of entire generations of kids surviving them.
Anyhow, I will absolutely resist outlawing things that have a purpose for adults for the reason that they're dangerous to kids. I am not a kid, I will protect my own kids from danger and I cannot accept if people want to transform the world into a padded cell that is safe for kids.
If free men own guns and slaves don't, free men can definitely grow plants in their own backyards and eat them.
Good point. In fact, that was entirely part of the plan. A granddaddy to the AK-47, the PPSh-41 (of 1941), was a simplified submachine gun, designed such that it could be mostly mass-produced by an unskilled workforce during war-time. It worked fabulously. Even the Germans who picked up captured units were converts way back then. It just worked more reliably in the cold and snow than their own precision-built MP-40s.
If you ever get the chance to see one in person, here's something interesting: The vast majority of PPSh carbines have rear sights that are out of kilter from the front. They still generally shoot to point of impact--by heroic effort of whoever sighted the rifle in. The hardest part to get right part of any gun is obviously the barrel. But that's really not so hard, either. It just requires more dedication--dedicated machinists and gunsmiths have been rifling barrels for a quite a while now, after all.
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
Mexico also has strict laws against murder AND the highest murder rate last year.
Sometimes, prohibiting something may not be the most workable solution, but allowing it. Especially in cases where millions are already doing it while it is still illegal.
Unless you plan on allowing murder, since a few thousand are doing it every year, I suggest starting with allowing the use of a substance people eat and smoke out of their own a million times a year. And with that, we allow also production and sales, we are not schizos.
A law that is broken by everyone needs to go. And I pray they start with the drug laws BEFORE everyone breaks the murder law.
Why can't they get the guns in Mexico? Oh that's right... they have gun control. Gun control there I guess, only works on those who decide to obey it. But it'll be totally different here right?
People who pay for dope should realize that they are funding a network of gangs and cartels that murders far more people than the more familiar flavor of terrorist does.
The problem is that this market will always exist. Asking people to stop consuming alcohol, cigarettes and other narcotics "for the common good" is like asking teenagers to practice abstinence. It goes against human nature, and will fall on deaf ears. The market is unstoppable. And when the government fails to control the market, it will instead become controlled by criminals through the methodology of violence.
n/t
you had me at #!
Shows how much you know: The Browning you're talking about is the Model 1919--probably chambered in .30-06. By all rights, they're antiques, and own-able examples are priced accordingly. And, you can't just go in, plunk down 25 grand and legally buy it off the shelf--even if you are a Federal Firearms Licensee, because even FFLs must APPLY with the BATF for Each and Every machine gun (and other title 2 firarms) they transfer to their inventories--which can take one to two months, depending on how busy the ATF is..
Sure, you can go reserve it and put down a deposit while they wait for the paperwork to go through, but you won't have it in your hands for some time after that. That has been the standard operating procedure for wanna-be machine gun owners for oh... For about 80 years now.
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
Hitler didn't rearm the GERMANS, he re-armed the German ARMY. That is the first major difference to consider.
Second: the Nazis in 1938
1) completely disarmed Jews, homosexuals, gypsies and anyone that was "untrustworthy" to the gun control authorities, which hit of course communists, intellectuals and people showing a faint idea of resistance.
2) disallowed innocent civilians from carrying a usable weapon
3) allowed Nazi Party officials and members of their organization to *freely* carry guns without any permit at all.
I think that can be called a three-pronged approach to the Nazis ultimate goals, can it?
Disarm Jews, disallow civilians from carrying guns, allow SS members to own and carry guns without any permit at all.
We know how well that worked out towards the Final Solution.
Sorry for not completely translating http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entwaffnung_der_deutschen_Juden for everyone, maybe the Google translations can be read...
I grew up 160 km (that's 795 furlongs, for Americans) outside a major Australian city. We never locked our doors. In fact we did not HAVE locks on any door or window. Burglaries in 20 years? Zero.
American society has been whipped into a paranoid, trigger happy frenzy by 24 hour propaganda on film and tv. Throw unlimited availability of firearms in the mix and you have the most dangerous society in the developed world; most major American cities have a highe homicide rate than São Paulo, Brazil (where gun control is credited with improving safety).
Also compare to Toronto, Canada: 90 homicides annually in a region of 5.5 million people.
you had me at #!
People who pay taxes should realize that they are funding a network of gangs and cartels that murders far more people than the more familiar flavor of terrorist does
There, fixed that for you. Our government has a good track record of going into other countries, identifying future terrorists and despots, and giving them guns. Your pot hookup? Probably contributed less to the Taliban than Uncle Sam.
I own a newer model 1911 with a sturdy slide safety and an internal drop safety (what is lacking in older models, making them very dangerous)
Actually, the lack of the drop safety (firing pin block) isn't all that dangerous on a 1911. It's the military and police department policies invented by useless bureaucrats which promoted dangerous behavior... Often, it was (very stupidly) mandated that automatic pistols were to be carried with the hammer decocked. Anyone who knows the 1911 knows that if you do that, the hammer is free to hit the firing pin. A modest force to the hammer = kablooie. After a some predictable incidents, military users were required to carry on an empty chamber with the safety on, a policy successfully recognized by soldiers as further ensuring the pistols' uselessness in an emergency.
When it's carried cocked and locked, however, the hammer has the normal position on the sear--and it also has a fall back fail safe, the half-cock position which catches the hammer if the full cock sear breaks.
As for the safety spontaneously disengaging: For what it's worth, I have been carrying a 1911 for 7 or 8 years and have *never* had my safety come off. You might want to look into a different holster or stronger detent spring--oh, and my open carry holster also has retention strap which would intercept the hammer in the event all of the safeties and so-on failed.
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
Switzerland has very low murder rates, yet any adult citizen (with no prior convictions) can buy a gun - all you need to is fill out a form, wait a few days and you get your gun.
No full auto unless you get special permits and carrying them also requires a special permit (without permit, you need to carry them in a locked container).
They're not coming from the US, that's for sure.
Small time shit? Maybe. The cartels? Not a fucking chance. They have M16s (which aren't the domestic firearm that you see typical American citizens buying; M16s are fully automatic, and would run you or I several thousand dollars and some big-time licenses from the ATF). They have AK47s. They have fucking grenade launchers.
This crime, down in Mexico? It's not a few gangs running around scrounging up supplies. It's large paramilitary organizations. They have no interest in Pappy's scattergun. They want military arms.
... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about.
You know, if someone is intent and willing to kill for drugs or money, then then I don't think it is too far a stretch to think that that person would kill for less. So legalize drugs;sell it legally in some shop. The cartels kill the competition when it is legal. Why would they all of a sudden become better people and let the legal competition slide?
Nothing would change, other than maybe freeing money and resources from prosecution to hunt and kill cartel members.
I'm all for drug legalization. But to think that it (legalization) will somehow make shitty murderous people better is pretty naive.
So they will kill you for your iPod or whatever makes them money.
If Mexico simply closed the border, with force. Stopped ALL americans from entering, the problem would be solved.
Because it is the US that is the problem, not Mexico. The US taste for drugs causes problems around the globe. Isolate the US and the drug trade ceases. The US are clearly to incompetent and to poor to patrol their own borders, so someone else should do it for them. Maybe the UN should blokkade the US :P
And the US could hardly protest, after all, they are against drugs aren't they? So UN ships blokkading their harbours would be a powerful move in the war on drugs.
Unless of course the war on drugs is merely a ruse for a different agenda... but that couldn't be, could it?
Basically the problem is that small countries cannot fight the endless stream of money that the American drug users generate. Similar problem to Iraq/Iran being able to wield large armies in a poor region from western oil money.
You can't stop the flow of drugs, so stop the flow of money.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Well, silly, your problem is that of a terminology mix-up. A gun isn't a weapon any more than fancy NASA pen--both are carefully crafted and very refined tools. Sure, in normal usage one goes bang when asked to do so, and the other one doodles very nicely (even upside down!) But, I recognize that with without me or some comparable being, either of these inanimate objects will just sit there indefinitely doing nothing particularly interesting...
But when I have either in my hands, I'm the weapon. I'm the dangerous, chaotic influence who is capable of putting the tools to use, as I see fit. If I had a particularly bad day, I *could* stab someone in the face with the pen (don't underestimate a pen) or I could do something similar with the gun, or the car, or the hammer, or the butter knife, or the brick, or the pointy stick.
The idea that a firearms' only purpose is to maim or kill is ridiculous. If the gunsmith's job was to create a maiming and killing machine, he fails miserably. Billions of rounds of ammunition are expended every year, all but a tiny fraction fall into earthen embankments, harming no soul. So, if you want to talk about murder machines, let's talk about the dreaded killbot menace.
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
I guess you never know when you will need an M-16 with a large clip to take down your own country's elected government.
Pet peeve of mine.
This is a Clip
This is a Magazine
The clip is used to feed rounds into the magazine. The magazine may either be fixed like on an M1 Garand or Removable like on an M-16.
Couldn't agree more. There was a headline a while ago about the police seizing a load of drugs with a street value of £100,000. Even with just the same taxes as apply to cigarettes, this would have been enough to fund several schools for a year. Instead, tax money was spent on police to keep it from reaching the customers. The only effect of which was to reduce supply a bit, drive up prices, and give one gang of criminals a financial edge over another.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
100 years ago there was no way to internationally distribute drugs on a large scale.
I really hope you're not American, because if you are you should go back to school, take a history lesson, and see why a lot of states were colonised in the first place. Start with Virginia...
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
You should be ashamed of such a blatant misrepresentation of facts. There is an obvious difference between the re-arming of the German army and the dis-arming of the German citizenry. Sadly, most people that read your post will not have noticed and will now be able to spread your ignorance further.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Mq5wQIFJE2YJ:www.stephenhalbrook.com/article-nazilaw.pdf
(Not an unbiased article, to be sure, but it does have all the references necessary to disprove your claim in the footnotes.)
http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id14.html There's your citation. How about some 1st hand testimony? I come from an eastern european communist dictatorship instituded by the Russians. First the Nazis came and confiscated all the weapons in WWII, then the Russians finished the job. We were left powerless with a horrible dictator in place. People just have no clue how important an armed citizenry is in ensuring liberty.
You're being entirely ridiculous. Yes, I can use my samurai sword to open a can of beans. But nobody builds a sword to open a can. If they wanted to open a can, they would make a damn can opener. You can also use a grenade to start a campfire and a land mine to hunt rabbits but that's not really what they were made for, is it? Hell, at most indoor ranges that I've been to the target is a silhouette of a human.
I'm not challenging the idea that human beings have free agency. But a gun is a tool that was invented to kill. They're designed to kill. They do kill. Just because you can also use it to shoot at fake people, concentric circles, or an orange disk flying through the air is irrelevant. The fact that you're even challenging that is absurd.
If we use your definition then *nothing* is a weapon. The word loses all meaning.
Legalising drugs is not what the drug lords want, it's what the drug consumers want. They could not compete with legal operations in terms of price. They would continue to do bad things, but they would not be able to keep large numbers of armed thugs on their staff without a source of income similar to the one that would evaporate with legalisation. They could switch to providing some other commodity, but what? It would take time to transition their production infrastructure over, and they would be faced with competition from established players. At least some of them would probably have underlings who realised that they could make money (although maybe not as much) as a legal supplier. A few at the top would probably be killed off, and some other sociopath would take their place, but that's not necessarily a bad thing: most CEOs of US companies are just as sociopathic as typical drug lords, but they exist in a system where their best interests are not served by killing people.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Let us apply this logic to other objects, with which you are probably very familiar.
Just because you can also use it to get to work, transport food from the store to your house, or get laid is irrelevant. The fact that you're even challenging that is absurd.
Just because you can also use it to play marco polo, train for the olympics, or swan dive is irrelevant. The fact that you're even challenging that is absurd.
Cars are really damn lethal when people want them to be (and even when they don't really). Pools too. Firearms are used in non-lethal fashion a whole lot. The difference between lethal and non-lethal use is many orders of magnitude different. So are cars. And pools.
I bet you're thinking of objecting right now that oooh guns were designed to kill! Cars and pools weren't! Perhaps not, but if I run you down with a car or hold your head under water, they certainly were weapons. And let us move on to the actual objection. If we label original design intent, you have a kitchen full of them. Knives were invented to kill. Sure, we use them for other purposes these days, but apparently that means nothing. The only purpose for them is to kill! Except it isn't.
I don't expect morality, equality, consistency, or justice from the law. I expect only legality.
I disagree, what we really need is a way to take people off drugs and stop healthy ones from ever "trying it out". there must be some kind of cure. the real problem is the destruction that drugs bring to brain and body of an addict, and their lives.
Well I hope now you see what it costs in human life for you to never have to walk away from a cloud of second-hand pot smoke.
Also I assume you support tobacco prohibition.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
The cheapest, used, bottom-of-the barrel CNC machines cost over $50k, are the size of a minivan, and require industrial power equipment. Very much out of the reach of the DIY crowd, and it will turn your power bill into a giant red flag.
But anyways who needs CNC machines? Taliban dudes build guns in their caves as a hobby.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Congratulations your level of insight has just illuminated the real solution to this issue: NOT!
The guns that fuel Mexico's bloody drug war come from the United States of America, where we are apparently just a little too dumb for sensible gun control.
And the money to pay for them comes from drug sales.
People who pay for dope should realize that they are funding a network of gangs and cartels that murders far more people than the more familiar flavor of terrorist does. Ideally we would decriminalize the drugs and thereby yank the support out from under these people. But that ain't going to happen, so if you happen to use recreational drugs, please do your fellow man a favor and stop.
It is only not going to happen as long as we have stupid knee-jerk reactions to complex social issues.
You brilliant insight is that this entire problem is simply individual behavior -ie. a personal problem.
Exactly how many of your brain cells got turned on between your ears to reach this oh-so illuminating solution?
Typical, brain-dead, conservative answer to every complex social issue-it's your personal fault and if only you would take responsibility the problem would magically go away.
Give. Me. A. Fucking. Break.
Millions of people incarcerated.
For profit prison industry.
For profit prison labor.
Merchants of death, capitalizing on this(gun sellers).
10,000's of employers subjecting their employees to drug-testing, when no employer should ever have that right.
Countless billions wasted, and countless numbers of police who have lost their lives fighting an asinine drug war which has had 0 positive effect since it started.
As long as people keep coming up with radical reductionist answers to complex problems- as long as every societal issue boils down to a personal problem-yep nothing is going to change.
God, your ilk makes me sick.
Nice try, but the full-auto and other MILITARY weapons aren't from US gun stores, nor are the grenades. The Mexican authorities cherry-pick the serial numbers they release in a game of blaming the US.
http://www.elpasotimes.com/ci_12366467?source=pkg
"I guess you never know when you will need an M-16 with a large clip to take down your own country's elected government."
Elections don't have much to do with freedom. Hitler was elected, lest ye conveniently forget. Even the Kos folks finally "get" the Second Amendment.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/7/4/881431/-Why-liberals-should-love-the-Second-Amendment
As the border situation deteriorates, police cannot protect everyone (most of what cops do is inherently reactive, not pre-emptive, and there are very few of them. It is wise to be armed with something that has reach and plenty of ammunition.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Right, except shooting at a range is clearly just a non-lethal version of what the gun was originally intended for. It's practice. That's not even the same thing. And the gun is still a weapon in that situation, it's just not being used against people.
As for the knife thing, yes, some knives are clearly weapons designed to be used as such. Some aren't. Some could be used as a weapon in a pinch but have little lethal ability. An 8" combat knife is clearly a weapon designed to kill. But I would have a hard time trying to kill somebody with my 1" swiss army knife.
You're trying proof by analogy. That doesn't work. Pools and cars are not guns. Knives are closer, but have many legitimate uses that are not destructive.
Show me a gun that was not designed to be a weapon and that couldn't be used to kill somebody. They don't exist, because a gun that didn't have lethal power is a useless gun.
What is your definition of a weapon, since it obviously differs so much from the definition everybody else uses?
Our power from sunbeams goes through three meters, actually. (Watts generated, total generation, and return to grid.) One of our neighbours said the other day that a lot of people she knew were thinking about getting PV installed, but it had taken someone (us) actually to do it before they would believe that what they were being told by the Government. The root problem with all beneficial change is innate conservatism that causes people to fear the new.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
I'm never sure why bullshit like this is ever modded up. It should just be ignored. Look, criminals have typically always received their munitions through illegal means. It essentially doesn't matter whether you arm the population or not. If someone wants a gun, they'll get it. If they're a punk looking to cause trouble, they'll do it regardless.
Looking at gun acquisition as a simple binary - either it's possible or it isn't - is a massive oversimplification; the ease of acquisition and price are both important factors. In the US an illegal, untraceable handgun costs about $500 according to the New York Sun; compare that with Britain, where prices for handguns start at £1000 ($1588) [Source: Home Office, "Gun crime: the market in and use of illegal firearms"] or Japan, where prices reportedly start at about $2000, and you can see that tight gun control makes it uneconomical for anyone other than serious, organised criminals to use guns.
This isn't to say that gun control should be applied in America, but "if someone wants a gun, they'll get it" completely ignores the reality in countries where gun control has been in force for some time.
If the cartels were able to stop legal selling of commodities, they would have done so for something like, say, food. That would certainly be lucrative, since the situation would be the same as everyone being a junkie and you can be the drug dealer. The cartels are able to corner the market for drugs because they are receiving help from the government in stamping out the competition. If you go after a rival drug dealer, he isn't likely to call the cops to help him out, and they aren't likely to want to help him anyway. If what happens is that you end up fighting a SWAT team when you get to his hideout, suddenly the conflict isn't as appealing.
Money makes a big difference. Stealing iPods isn't as lucrative as the drug trade, or even if it is there is only so much money that can be extracted from each activity without diminishing returns. Drugs are a major funding source of organized crime. If you remove that source of funds, the crime will probably try to move to other areas, but those areas will not be as profitable because if they were, the crime would have already moved to those areas without legalization of drugs. The end result is less money for organized crime, and that makes the organization harder to maintain, since there is less incentive to partake of the crime, and it makes the organization less effective. E.g. there may no longer be money to buy off politicians and cops, or at least not as many, and the actually intelligent people who orchestrate the whole thing may be able to make a better living working 9-5 at a bank or something like that. Removing funding from crime is good in the same way that destroying the economy of your enemy is helpful if you are in war with them - they then have less resources to be an effective enemy to you.
To engage your exact point, yes, bad people aren't going to become rose gardeners just like that. Still, many people on the fringes of organized crime will withdraw their services when there is no longer money to pay them. The bad people will become much less of a problem when they are not backed by a support structure bought for millions of dollars. With less money in the system, there is less incentive to join, making it a less appealing career for young people who might then choose to avoid that world entirely. With the apparently heavy death toll in this business, recruitment to make people bad must be an important factor in keeping organized crime alive.
"All legalization would do in the US is increase consumption."
Bullshit. As with alcohol, consumption tops out at whatever level consumers prefer.
Back in the 1970s, when weed didn't have the absurd legal consequences attached to it (and head shops were extremely common) getting high was perfectly normal in many areas. It didn't cause any trouble,and if the cops found any on you they often poured it out (or, ahem, confiscated it) and told you to move on. Weed was easier to get than booze if you were young, and since it is vastly more pleasant than the nasty buzz of alcohol, most of a generation smoked it.
Paying millions of dollars to bust and incarcerate pot smokers isn't intelligent social policy. It is driven be religionist loathing of any pleasure they do not control. The fanatical pseudo-moralist streak in America drives policies that exist for their own sake, don't facilitate their professed goals, and waste billions of our tax dollars.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
"Not gonna work. Buying her diamonds makes you more attractive, using drugs makes her more attractive."
Good point. Feed her the drugs, skip the diamonds.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Yeah, like Mobsters were enough to convince Americans to exercise temperance. (not) I'm not sure if this is a straw man or a red herring but no matter what it is, I believe it is wrong. America failed to learn from history, and so was doomed to repeat it. We have long passed the point where the negative effects of marijuana prohibition have eclipsed the regulated legalized sale of the drug. And as far as the likelihood of decriminalization goes, it has already been largely decriminalized when it comes to use and between MMJ and other legalization initiatives around the US, there is a pretty large grass roots (ha-ha) movement already in progress to further legalize and regulate it's growth and sale.
One of these days I'm going to cut you into little pieces. - PF
"But that ain't going to happen, so if you happen to use recreational drugs, please do your fellow man a favor and stop."
No.
That would affirm the social stranglehold anti-pleasure religionists wish to maintain. Better to force things to their logical conclusion thus ensuring the system breaks itself.
Legalization is only now being considered because practical behaviors are less expensive than bowing to the Christian Taliban.
I'm fine with maintaining the War on Some Drugs until the consequences become so disruptive that they coerces change, The way to fight an unconventional struggle is to tire out the enemy. The way to break people who refuse to listen is to turn up the pain. It's working.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
"We need an international effort to legalize personal production of all personally produceable drugs. Not public consumption, not a blanket for junkies, but just a way for people to use their freedom in NOT helping the cartels."
That would de-fund terrorists world-wide.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
"That's why Hitler and every other "successful" dictator made it a top priority to first disarm the citizens. "
ALMOST every successful dictator.
Saddam had a very long run, but he didn't disarm Iraq. The tradition of every home having a weapon for self-defense remained (quite rightly, Iraq was always a bad place) and even Coalition forces allow every householder a full-auto rifle for self-protection.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Legalising drugs is not what the drug lords want
Absolutely! It would kill their profit margins. Them and the growers, the dealers, the fences who profit hugely off the fact that your average junkie in the street can't begin to afford the artificially high prices of his daily fix. These are the people most fervently opposed to legalization. And, of course, we all know that Washington (at least) runs on lobby money, so the next time you hear a politician talking about how we can't possibly consider legalizing drugs, ask yourself who is most likely to have been lobbying him on the matter? Drugs are big business! :)
it's what the drug consumers want
Not just consumers! Anyone who is sick of the high human cost of the decades-long failed "War on Drugs". Anyone who has the sense to see that drug addiction should be treated as a medical problem, not a legal one. Anyone who has seen a friend or family member's life spiral out of control because they were afraid to ask for help with a problem that had potentially severe legal consequences. It's a long way from being just the consumers who want drugs legalized, licensed and regulated.
Actually, the idea that the guns come predominantly from the US is an outright lie.
Look at the pictures yourself.
The ejection ports are always down (making the guns sit up on the charging handle sometimes, or forward assist in the case of the Armalite style guns)
Facing the port down will also hide the status of the weapon as fully auto or semi-auto.
FULL auto guns are very expensive and very hard to get in the US. The idea that they are being bought through legit means (which is what gun control would control) is outright false.
IT. IS. A. FUCKING. LIE.
The badass guns the bad guys are getting come from the Mexican military, and the militaries and smuggling operations out of South American countries.
The guns they have traced are a small percentage of the ones seized, and the Mexicans have not turned any of them over to US authorities for examination in any credible way. IF these were purchased guns, having the serial number would make it EASY to find out where they came from.
In conclusion, IF the guns are coming from the US it's a "theft of gun" problem, not a "gun control problem"
The guns are in fact, coming from MEXICO itself, and it's a "theft of guns from military" problem, or gasp! maybe, gosh, dunno, just more government corruption and propensity to take bribes.
Tightening the gun control screws on law-abiding citizens (the only people additional laws affect) will do NOTHING to stop additional guns getting into the hands of Mexican gangs.
Anybody that does believe that, is a moron. Anybody that says that, is a LIAR.
The difference between an AR-15 and an M-16 is like the difference between a base-model 1.6 Elise and an Exige S: They're based on the same design and it IS possible to basically modify one into the other...although the inferior model is still VERY good for doing what it's meant to do.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
While it may be possible to prevent individuals from acquiring high quality firearms, bombs are a far greater threat than firearms, and it is impossible to stop people from producing them. Those who think they have a right to kill thirteen year old burglars are antisocial lunatics, but whether it is moral to own weapons is irrelevant, some will.
Or grow and smoke your own cannabis, in the privacy of your home. And don't take it outside. Make your right to privacy, as long as you don't harm others, be respected.
Buanzo Consulting - 15 Years of GNU/Linux experience, for you.
Hell, at most indoor ranges that I've been to the target is a silhouette of a human.
Hahaha, good point, that is kind of creepy from a sport shooting point of view. When I was into archery the targets were always concentric circles, which was a more useful target shape anyways, as I had no intentions of ever shooting anyone. Of course the bow is designed as a deadly weapon, and I was careful to treat it as such.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Not to mention the Khyber Pass and Danao City improvised arms industries. Many firearm parts can be made with simple hand tools like reams, taps, files etc. However IED's are very easy to make and extremely effective weapons, making the underground production of firearms more of a curiosity than a practical endeavour.
Actually from what I have read reduced restrictions on firearm ownership for everyone except Jew's, so there's a bit of truth to both sides of the story.
It is not necessary to build a gun in prison when the prisoners can simply smuggle a high quality weapon inside, or even better, get to use the weapons from the prison guards. That what was allegedly happening in the Gómez Palacio prison, the death squads that where murdering people in Gomez Palacio and Torreon were the prisoners that could get in an out of prison when the gangs needed their gunmen to execute mass murders.
Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
Insurance, if you kill your neighbour's thirteen year old kid after having caught him breaking into your liquor cupboard, that's usually frowned upon by our society. I'm actually a New Zealander, but we're mostly the same. While I'm opposed to gun control, I'm also opposed to death as a punishment for a misdemeanor offence.
Though it does occur to me that the ammunition may be harder. One would have to be skilled indeed to make brass casings but that isn't the super hard part. The really sticky bit are the primers and powder. Both involve chemistries that aren't tolerant of sloppiness or errors. You won't be firing black powder out of AK though the Mythbusters showed that mixing up your own black powder and getting it right isn't trivial either.
They very well may be better than US guns. My point is that homemade guns will not compare to professionally mass-manufactured ones.
The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is what punches workers in the nuts.
Having the raw resources, a machine that stamps parts and a place to put them together is already several levels of infrastructure more than someone who's doing massively illegal things wants to bother with.
Once could say that cars also are easy enough to manufacture. It's still cheaper and better for criminals and terrorists around the world to just buy them. They'd rather have something effective and reliable without having to make it themselves.
The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is what punches workers in the nuts.
People who pay for dope should realize that they are funding a network of gangs and cartels that murders far more people than the more familiar flavor of terrorist does.
I believe that is reasonable, as long as alcoholics realize what it does to their families and neighborhoods, and cigarette smokers realize what it does to the environment and children and big tobacco, and caffeine drinkers realize what a neurotic society we are becoming...
Everything has a side effect, whether it's legal or not. So maybe we should get off the bandwagon of who caused the drug war.
Reality is policies cause wars, not people.
When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
What kind of legal restrictions on weapons carried in public are reasonable to you? Should a business or property owner be allowed to restrict the carrying of weapons onto/into their premises? Should a firearm have to have its safety enabled at all times? Should it have to remain holstered? If not; in what manner should it have to be held when removed from its holster if any? .
That won't change a fucking thing. People will still do drugs, and there's nothing wrong with that.
21, not 18. Remember which country we're talking about here.
You can be in porn, screw adults, go to war for your country, but not drink at 18. Makes sense to me!
It's easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_abuse#Prohibition_and_conflict_in_China
Following China's defeat in the Second Opium War in 1858, China was forced to legalize opium and began massive domestic production. Importation of opium peaked in 1879 at 6,700 tons, and by 1906, China was producing 85% of the world's opium, some 35,000 tons, and 27% of its adult male population regularly used opium --13.5 million people consuming 39,000 tons of opium yearly.[44] From 1880 to the beginning of the Communist era, the British attempted to discourage the use of opium in China, but this effectively promoted the use of morphine, heroin, and cocaine, further exacerbating the problem of addiction.[45]
I'm not a really pro-gun person, but really, considering they're selling something that's illegal to make, traffic and sell... I can't see them having a hard time making, trafficking or selling guns either if they were illegal.
Do it slowly. Like cigarettes. It's a cultural thing, you understand. Other countries don't have the problem the US does, because here we're not taught that guns are cool, or necessary, or our right, or our civic duty. Guns are despised as what the bad guys have. We don't want to be like the bad guys. So we don't want, have, or allow guns. Generations of this and you won't have guns just laying around.
Yes, trying to suddenly ban handguns in the US would fail hard. But like drunk driving if you slowly reduce the legal limits and impose sensible restrictions, you might find your problem goes away.
Guns aren't like drugs in the sense that drugs have a very immediate, intense, and tangible high associated with them. Guns merely have biggus dickus proxy self-esteem moderation value.
"Oh no... he found the
Seconded from NY. Hell I think we should split the city off from the state entirely. And I've got family in LA.
C|N>K
My complaint was always that the cigarette tax was to high in reference to alcohol. I looked it up when the debate was going full blown with regard to the tax. There is just as much spent on alcohol health issues as there is with cigarettes. Car accidents, regular accidents, sclerosis of the liver, spousal abuse, child abuse, and I can't remember what else.
My complaint was that alcohol was an acceptable drug that costs society just as much as cigarettes. And nobody would support it being taxed at the same rate. Which it isn't.
Truthfully, I don't care what people do. I'm not one of those x drinkers/smokers that preaches for others to quit. Don't care. Drunks are fun to watch and smoke masks the bad body oder of some people.
Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Time
Just out of curiosity, what do people who live out in the middle of nowhere do to defend themselves against thieves? It's one thing when the police are minutes away in the city, but in the outback, I'm sure that's not always the case.
Two answers.
One: our thieves by and large don't have guns because they're not trivial to come by for petty criminals. In the US, any citizen can get a gun so they're more widely available.
Two: our cultures by and large aren't fed by fear. B&Es are rare. The odds of actually getting broken into if you don't live in a slum are pretty low. We're not constantly living in fear. Funny, that.
Bonus answer number three: in our cultures, killing someone who's trying to steal your TV isn't considered reasonable response. This isn't the Wild West.
"Oh no... he found the
Ah, alcohol is taxed at a proportionate rate to cigs here, thats probably why I never had any problems in that area.
An M-16 is a highly controller firearm. To own an M-16 (a fully automatic .223 caliber machine gun) you have to fill out a ton of paperwork and apply for a Tax Stamp from the BATFE (and pay $200). This includes fingerprint cards and a signed letter from your local Chief Law Enforcement Officer. Not to mention that on the low end a transferrable (meaning, can be owned by civillians) M-16 costs, BARE MINIMUM, $14,000, and up to over $20,000 for new unfired weapons.
Now, with all of that said - explain to me how we don't have "sensible gun control" ?
Oh and M-16 uses a magazine not a clip. Sorry, pet peeve.
It doesn't really matter when you can buy the tooling to produce AK-47s pretty easily and inexpensively.
http://www.ak-builder.com/
If we somehow magically banned and destroyed every gun in the US tomorrow someone in South America would setup shop overnight and be cranking out firearms faster than you can imagine. Where there is a demand someone will create a supply.
You can buy 7.62 ammunition all over the planet by the hundreds of thousands of rounds. Why would you manufacture it yourself? Ammunition supply has nothing to do with US gun laws.
Granted, I'm from Canada, and its more of a problem here since the taxes on cigs more directly pay the health care bills of the folks sucking them back, but still, our cig tax is higher, and still not high enough. ... ... ... .
It has gotten so bad that they're close to letting doctors here in a lot of provinces refuse to treat you if you smoke, purely on the basis that you smoke. Its actually a fair policy.
I'm not saying ban it,
Why not just go Red Queen on their asses and put them out of their misery quick?
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
and people who give the american government money in any way, whether through sales taxes on anything or income tax, are funding a network of gangs and cartels that murders far more people than the mexican drug gangs could ever dream of; imagine if they had access to bombers and tanks. ideally the u.s. would pull their military out of these wars and use them for something actually useful to the citizens of their country, but that ain't going to happen. so if you happen to pay any sort of taxes or engage in commerce at all in the u.s.a., please do your fellow man a favour and stop.
do not read this line twice.
That assumes that they are killing because it's good times and not to protect their own lives and/or business interests, which seems unlikely.
If drugs were legal you wouldn't need to kill to eliminate competition, you wouldn't need to kill to protect yourself from law enforcement and you wouldn't need to kill to protect your product; not only would you not NEED to kill to accomplish those ends, killing wouldn't even be the most efficient way. Once the law in on your side you can ruin a man AND get all his money AND come out of it being the Good Guy. Someone steals your drugs? The police look into it for you, and the stuff was insured even if they don't find it.
It's not like you don't have a pretty good model to see that your stance isn't realistic.
Incorrect. Just requires a bit of paperwork and waiting.
People have done drugs as long as we have had recorded history. It's not social, it's biological.
Not entirely incorrect but misleading. You do not have to have an FFL[SOT] to own a transferable machine gun. All you need to do is find a pre-may 1986 machine gun for sale, fill out your form 4 and associated forms, send the BATFE a check for $200, and wait 4-6 months for the paperwork to come back.
I'm trying to figure out how that's not buying it off the shelf? Yes you have to wait (and the wait is more like 4-6 months right now, I just waited 110 days to get a form4 back on a suppressor) but it's still purchased "off the shelf" ?
But nobody builds a sword to open a can.
Only because it's an incredibly poor tool for that particular job--just try to do it without losing the can's contents. I can more successfully open cans with my fighting knife... Another object which by extension of your logic has only one purpose in life: to kill people, since that's actually what it was designed to do... Every feature from the clip point, and the cross section of the blade, the fuller (the groove which lets blood out and lightens the blade), to the guard and the pommel makes it a knife superbly adapted to puncturing and slashing humans.
They even make a rubberized plastic version, which you can use to simulate a real knife and safely train in the art of knife-fighting with a *live* human opponent. Yet such knives overwhelmingly find utility roles, like opening cans, cutting tree limbs, and other survival related uses.
The point of this is: You can't classify tools based on inference. Even if most firearms are weapons by your assumption, there are clearly some which were designed for other uses. By the principal of falsifiability, I will show that your assertion that all firearms are maiming and killing machines is patently false.
There is a group called the International Shooting Sport Federation which oversees their brand of sport shooting--so happens this is the variety which of sport shooting which appears in Olympic events. So, we have an organization which internationally promotes the sport of shooting. Competitors in these matches often use very expensive ($10,000 on up) highly specialized instruments, which are in every aspect finely tuned to the particular discipline of this sport, and indeed specifically and ergonomically tuned to the individual using it.
You have various shotgun matches, centerfire rifle matches, rimfire rifle, rimfire pistol and centerfire pistol etc. etc. To be competitive in these disciplines, you basically *must* use the firearms specifically designed with these competitions in mind. Can these devices maim and kill humans or other critters? Certainly. In many ways, they might very good at that purpose. Are they designed to kill? No. They're clearly designed to shoot at graduated circular targets--and do a very good job of it.
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
Cocaine's last legal use was for a dental anesthetic and that was ended ages ago; if you build hydroponic production sheds for coca cultivation, the intended purpose was for something more nefarious than pharmaceutical production. My magic 8 ball says the DEA is getting tired of the new strains of "Roundup Ready" coca and is getting serious about eradication.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Actually, that's not entirely difficult. There are hobbyists who make primers and powder today. Getting the right combination of primer power to gunpowder might be tricky. But it's doable.
The cartridge brass is actually one of the more harder to quantify parts of a firearm system... The metallurgy must be very specific. You want the brass to be slightly springy, because one of its lesser known functions is to serve as a gasket to the chamber. It must very predictably contract from its expanded state. It must also be hard enough that it doesn't flow under the designed pressure. Sometimes, you want the neck of the brass to be annealed, so that it doesn't crack--and the rest of the case remains work hardened.
But none of this is out of reach of the truly dedicated individual.
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
The gangs won't be out of business - they'll just be doing other things which are profitable, like:
* politics (yep, same basic people, they just wear suits)
* prostitution
* robbery and burglary
* more complex schemes
Just because the drugs are legal does not mean that criminals will stop trying to take advantage of a situation "too good to be true". No, there won't be as much profit in it (except for the government), so yes, it'll probably end up getting more violent between gangs.
Of course, political bureaucrats will likely gain the most from such a silly idea through taxes. Somehow, giving ineffective, corrupt, and usually incompetent and malevolent people lots of money who also happen to have the ability to make laws seems like a bad idea. It typically is, as the most significant thing government provides is more government.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
An unenforceable law only weakens the rule of law and respect for authority. It creates an antagonistic relationship between the police and the populace they are meant to protect. It is in every way counterproductive. Even in your future dreamworld you cannot fully enforce the law because "...Home-grown drugs will never be stoppable..." This means that you should not make a law against it, you should either leave it alone or regulate the activity to try to minimize the negative impact and perhaps turn it to positive use (usually done via taxation.)
But there was a tax, and there was a seal (stamp, actually). Of course, the whole idea was to stop cannabis, not raise revenue.
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
There's already a federal tax, $10.00/oz for medical use and $100.00/oz for recreational use if memory serves me correctly; I believe it's from the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937. Many states also have their own taxes.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Bonus rebuttal number one:
Your demographics are much different. When people have nothing in common they don't care about each other and act tribally.
Bonus rebuttal number two:
People stealing TVs from an occupied residence thereby demonstrate their willingness to destroy any opposing humans therein.
Therefore, shooting them is reasonable. They can avoid the whole situation by behaving themselves. I don't invade the homes of others, and therefore remain happily unshot!
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Nope. The law states that if you get caught the second Time you'll go to jail.
NO SIG
Guns are easy and inexpensive to produce. AK-47s are relatively straightforward to make, and for that reason they have spread throughout the world. They can be repaired easily, and parts can be made in a basic shop. But you do bring up an interesting point about American prices ... why would they bother, when arms dealers elsewhere can get them primo ordinance for less? Guns flow into Mexico from all over, and if you thing the presence of a few guns of American origin is proof that the whole drug trade is armed with nothing but American guns, you're sadly mistaken. That propaganda has been promoted by a) the Mexican government, for reasons of gaining immigration concessions from the US, b) anti-gun rights Americans, who will stop at nothing to ban law-abiding citizens here from exercising their rights, and c) those whose understanding of the issue comes from sound bites.
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
So, you plan on solving one failed prohibition's problems with another failed prohibition?
And you think that is in any way "sensible"?
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
We need an international effort to legalize personal production of all personally produceable drugs
Generally agreed; but it should still be illegal to make meth in your home. Ditto for anything else where the process might cause the house to explode and/or leave a toxic waste dump in the 'hood.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
He's a troll because he's a troll. We drug users are sick of tired of ignorant non-users getting up on their high horse and blaming us, saying "well if you didnt do drugs..." as if your "clean and sober" life makes you a better person than me. He starts with the idiotic personal opinion that drugs are "bad" and should be banned, and then bases his entire argument on that, blaming drug users for the violence in Mexico. When you start with fucked up and incredibly biased premises, your conclusion is by definition, shit, and unworthy of being broadcast to other rational people--UNLESS you just want to stir people up and anger them.
We're tired of being looked down upon, being forced into the shadows of society because of a bunch of fucking Puritans can't pull their heads out of their asses for long enough to smoke one joint, and thus put themselves on the path towards learning the actual truth about drugs and seeing through the bullshit. But I guess that'd mean a lot of people would have to realize and accept they'd been ignorant and stupid for the past XX years, so it's easier to just keep on buying the lie and denounce anyone who disagrees as a druggie or pothead.
>Fuck this nanny state shit.
>Tax the fuck out of people that want to do things that are unhealthy for them.
You do realise these are competing viewpoints, right? Taxing people for doing things you consider unhealthy or morally 'wrong' (sin tax) is nannying. "No no, you mustn't do that" "If you dont want to pay the extra taxes, you'll be a better person and quit all that nasty smoking!"
Browsing with classic discussion, noscript, at -1 and nested
no hidden comments and I only mod UP
less profit equals less motivation, and thus less violence; not more.
people don't get violent over a nickel, they get violent over a multi-million dollar industry (which has no protection under the law from theft or violent takeover).
I'm also not sure why you think legal drugs would be less profitable; it would just move the profit from gangs to corporations.
I agree with your point about bureaucracy, but I think it's better to have drugs saddled with taxes than paid for in blood.
Browsing with classic discussion, noscript, at -1 and nested
no hidden comments and I only mod UP
both PRESERVE the Second Amendment AND make it more DIFFICULT for Mexican drug cartels (and probably felons here in the U.S.) to purchase MASS QUANTITIES of weapons
Please, enlighten me. How would you preserve my rights as an American, and simultaneously make sure that no American guns end up in cartel hands?
I think it's curious that right now the anti-gun crowd is using the same tactics that the anti-cannabis crowd did nearly a century ago. In the 1930's, the government didn't make cannabis illegal outright; they simply made legal ownership impossible. The same thing is happening today in the US with guns - parts of Illinois, New York, Massachusetts, Maryland, and other states have de facto handgun bans.
Part of the problem you're encountering is that you want to enact laws to restrict those who don't care about laws. There are already laws that serve to restrict law-abiding people.
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
All I know is I do not want to live anywhere near anyone that has a weapon that will almost assume my death any time he chooses.
As you already admitted, you can't stop murders - if I want to kill you, I could do that with a kitchen knife, or my bare hands, or a hammer, or my car. Are you afraid to live near me because I have these all these lethal things? If yes, there is nowhere safe for you. If no, then please realize that I am no more likely to kill you with a gun than with what I already have.
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
*cough* Walter Duranty *cough* Stalin
Well, unlike suppressors, SBRs and SBSs, most FFL/SOTs don't regularly stock transferable MGs. That's what I mean. They're unlike virtually any other item one can buy at a retail store, including suppressors--because there's a fixed supply... They're more like antiques in that way.
Is that "buying it off the shelf"? Perhaps... but that phrase implies a casual go in and pick it up type of transaction, when the reality is that couldn't be further from the truth.
My reply, however, was more specifically regarding the GPs assertion: Only thing you need is a Federal Firearms Permit and you can pick it right up off the floor., which is wrong on two counts: 1) as you know, you don't need an FFL 2) even an FFL/SOT dealer must file Form 3 (Application to transfer Title 2 firearms) with the BATF...
Form 3s are taking about a month, maybe more maybe less. I don't know whether you bought your suppressor from your local SOT, or from an out of state SOT... But if you had done the latter, you would know it's about a month wait for your dealer to receive the item before they're willing to let you do the Form 4 paperchase... After all, YOU don't want to do a Form 4 on a serialized item, when there's no particular guarantee you're going to receive that serial number. As you can imagine, it could be a royal fuck-up if your out of state dealer messes up while your forms are being processed.
P.S. Congrats on your suppressor. They're a fun and addicting hobby. May I ask what you got?
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
Take a trip to the Andes, it's still quite heavily used in multiple consumer products, and the plant itself is quite legal over there.
Enaco S.A. is a government enterprise. Yes, let's see the DEA even attempt to piss them off.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Actually, no. The Browning I'm talking about (just called the store) is a 1919A4 .308 (not .380)
Shows how much YOU know, sir.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
"When was the last time you saw a browning .380 used by a criminal or confiscated by the police?"
Well, the Browning .380 ( I had my calibers mixed up) is a handgun. That's probably confiscated many times over the decades.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
I'm all for drug legalization. But to think that it (legalization) will somehow make shitty murderous people better is pretty naive.
It's not that legalization would make "shitty murderous people" better, it would make "shitty murderous" behavior less profitable. Unless you want to believe that such behavior is entirely genetic and only is committed by "bad" people, and that no one gets enticed into such bad behavior because it is the most lucrative opportunity available to them, then it is entirely reasonable to assume that policy which makes bad behavior less lucrative will over time will lead to less of that behavior.
Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
Gun laws are pretty hard to enforce when the police have 9mm pistols and shotguns and the criminals have AK47s and RPG's.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
But not good guns. If it was that easy to make reliable, accurate, durable guns then no one would ever buy them at American prices.
Yes but the AK47/AK74 and variants demonstrate that 2 out of 3 ain't bad.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
I've seen far too many huge companies taken down by new technology and poor business decisions to believe that a shadow conspiracy exists to stifle progressive change in drug laws and energy innovation. As always, public opinion is the strongest political force in the united states, and as it changes, so too will our laws.
Look, nobody says that all the bad men will go away in a magic flash but consider this - it takes a major and comparatively easy source of revenue away. Less people will get into the game because the profits are not there. Do some of the gangs switch to other crimes? Sure. But they don't have a product to sell that lots of folk want and that is tacitly supported by much of the population who don't agree with the drug laws.
Not all of them are killers, not all of them start off as killers. Take the money away and watch the cartels shrink. Not disappear, but shrink a lot.
Valid point though, taxation to stop bad habits is just a different way of being a nanny.
Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Time
But to think that it (legalization) will somehow make shitty murderous people better is pretty naive.
So they will kill you for your iPod or whatever makes them money.
Shitty murderous people are not born that way. There are places in the world where becoming part of a drug cartel does improve your lifestyle. Funding is what makes that possible. If consumers stopped paying those people for killing whoever stands in the middle of dope and them, they would get their money elsewhere. Maybe without murdering people. It's not safe to shoot people, they might shoot back. Most of them would rather be paid for browsing /. like us, instead.
This world is ruled by money. If you want someone to change their behavior, you can start by not paying them to do what you don't like.
You know, if someone is intent and willing to kill for drugs or money, then then I don't think it is too far a stretch to think that that person would kill for less. So legalize drugs;sell it legally in some shop. The cartels kill the competition when it is legal. Why would they all of a sudden become better people and let the legal competition slide?
That part is funny!!
Do you think any cartel could stop some company of the size of Philip Morris, for example, from trading pot and cocaine if it were legal?
Drug cartels are no competition for large corporations.
People stealing TVs from an occupied residence thereby demonstrate their willingness to destroy any opposing humans therein.
I wonder, do you believe that evidence for the above is so common and widespread you don't need to mention it, or did it not even occur to that evidence would be required?
The only way I could possibly believe your statement is if the thief is in a society where he expects to be shot upon being discovered in someone's home without permission, and therefore believes he is in a kill-or-be-killed situation. But that hardly supports your [presumed] argument that widespread gun ownership makes people safer, and you'd still need evidence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Drug_War#Sources_of_weapons
The US is just one vector for firearms into Mexico, M-16s with selective fire in Mexico will be coming from Mexican law enforcement, the military or other Latin American countries since you can't buy an M-16 in the United States for under 3500 dollars and a metric ton of paperwork.
Take a shower, groom yourself and don't pass out in parks with a needle sticking out of your feet and you won't be looked down upon.
Trying to ban firearms or a class of firearms always gets attention and instant opposition.
They are part of the nation's history and founding mythologies, plus rights of possession are in the Constitution.
Would you support the ending of free speech for one type of speech, say newspapers or the Internet?
Proof by analogy works quite a lot. Which is why we have words like oh, I don't know, analogy. It doesn't work for you probably because it would ruin your view on guns. Hence your counterargument "pools and cars are not guns" .. They're also not chairs, but neither of those statements are at all relevant. Lets see what is relevant in here though.
Right. That second group is unclearly designed to be used as such. Even you can't keep your definition of weapon straight. "Could be used as a weapon in a pinch" meaning that the actual use makes it a weapon. And yet we have this gem:
its a weapon when being used in a non-lethal fashion the way millions of people do billions of times a year. Use doesn't matter.
You'll be happy to know, though, that your appeal to the people (everybody else's definition) is an argumentative fallacy.
I don't expect morality, equality, consistency, or justice from the law. I expect only legality.
I didn't say it was necessary. I was replying to this post:
So.. when they can be made in such difficult situations, yes they can be made in homemade gun labs.
I don't expect morality, equality, consistency, or justice from the law. I expect only legality.
Hmmm, on the exact same page, there are people who say "artificially restricting drug traffic" causes crime, so remove all restrictions and then we have people who say we need to restrict gun traffic. Putting all these gun laws on the books has done exactly what to illegal gun use? That's right, nothing.
Oh, and before someone says what harm does a person doing drugs to some other person (vs. guns)? How many people are killed by drunk drivers each year?
1919A4s were all originally chambered for .30-06 Springfield, unless they were sold to friendly foreign governments who used .303 British or 8mm Mauser (namely, Turkey, Hungary and a couple pre-soviet Slavic nations, but those would be exceedingly rare). So, it was either re-chambered by a private owner/gunsmith or by the US Navy during or prior to the Vietnam war, and if it was modified by the Navy it would have been properly called a Mk 21 Mod 0, where it was used on a ship borne pintle mount (patrol boats, generally). I'll let you guess how likely one of those weapons ended up in private hands.
Either your pawn shop guys don't know their shit, or they're trying to pawn off to some chump something that in all likelihood doesn't function reliably. Depends on how aggressively it's priced, and how expertly the conversion was done.
So, game over.
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
The other day I was at the grocery store and a woman saw my pistol. When she noticed that the hammer was back (the proper way to carry a 1911 is with a round in the chamber, the hammer back, and the safety on) she asked me "Isn't that dangerous."
My answer to her: "Yes, that's the point of owning a pistol. They're dangerous when you need them to be."
She smiled, got the point, and went about her day.
I've never understood why people walking around carrying light sabers in public like Luke Skywalker are considered weird little nerds, but people carrying a loaded gun in public like Jack fucking Bauer are considered macho. It all looks the same to me.
I think it is silly and paranoid to suggest the US government is owned by drug cartels. The only reason things don't change is for not wanting to be considered soft on crime and appearing for drugs, instead of against prohibition, when it comes to the politics of re-election. It really comes down to how you frame the discussion, and politics can frame it any way they want. It would take real political courage to do what is right here. As far as actual courage, the US President is protected more than anyone in the world, and I don't think it's unreasonable to say the cartels cannot get to him or his family in the US. He can promote policy, but I don't think he can repeal prohibition by executive order. I think it has to come through legislation, which means the aforementioned political problems become more of an issue for Congress facing re-election and getting them on board. And at the end of the day, we've only got Congressmen Kucinich with any common sense on the issue.
As it stands, if somebody exposes me to their pot cloud, I can have them arrested for drug use. However if it were legal, then I would have no recourse.
What's your recourse when some drunk guy walks past you talking to loud ? Or a smoker blows their smoke in your direction ?
Weed smells terrible, even worse than tabacco does, which makes it intrusive and thus ill-suited to everyday life.
That invasive smell is much more nasty than alcohol.
American society has been whipped into a paranoid, trigger happy frenzy by 24 hour propaganda on film and tv.
No. This is an ugly stereotype. We don't really live like GTA 4. Ironically, it seems that the propaganda is working the other way around.
Throw unlimited availability of firearms in the mix
There are limits. Lots of them..
and you have the most dangerous society in the developed world
I would disagree.
most major American cities have a highe homicide rate than São Paulo, Brazil
First, you cherry-picked that number. The remainder of Brazil is still dangerous as hell, with homicide rates 5 to 10 times the rate in Sao Paolo (Maceio ranks at the top with a stunning 104 .01), with an overall murder rate of 25.2 for the last year available (2007), which is roughly 5 times the number for the US in the same period. Sao Paolo seem to be benefiting from increased enforcement, but at the expense of the right of individuals to defend themselves, which is inexcusable. Enforcement of reasonable existing laws is the best way to deal with violence.
Homicide (for the US, includes non-negligent homicide) rates per 100,000:
Chicago has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country, yet its homicide rate exceeds that of Sao Paolo, so I don't think that restrictive laws alone are the answer. Texas, on the other hand, has less restrictive gun laws, and many places there despite their alleged "cowboy" mentality have very low homicide rates. More restrictive laws don't help. Better enforcement of reasonable existing laws does.
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
That is all.
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
In the US, prison guards typically aren't allowed to carry firearms. People are suppressed with basically hand to hand combat by people in riot gear. This prevents a prisoner from somehow getting a gun and going to town one everyone. Guard towers are often essentially external to the prison for this reason.
It's worth noting that alcohol prohibition and prohibition of other drugs are very different situations. For thousands of years the percentage of people who consume some alcoholic beverage was relatively high, and is tightly integrated with many cultures. It can also be made just about anywhere with just about anything. Trying to suddenly make that illegal is completely different than, say, meth.
If you really think making meth legal would improve things, then refer to studied in other countries that have legalized similar drugs.
Cig taxes tend not to go up because studies show that increasing the tax generally decreases revenue. Cities and states care more about the revenue than your health (and rather short-sighted in that sense) so they haven't increased the taxes to deal with the health problems they cause. The revenue often doesn't go to paying health costs anyway.
Funtime Candy Wow! - my plan for eventually conquering Japan.
Ups, that was my "wooosh!!" moment. Well, yes, if banning guns have the same effect that banning drugs had, kevlar and armor will become a necessity like food an shelter. About home made firearms, it reminds me of Jules Verne's "Mysterious Island", when the protagonist make nitroglycerin almost out of nothing. Except for the steel, everything needed for the gun's workshop could be bought in a Home Depot.
Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
I don't think prohibition of the substance creates demand. That just doesn't even make sense. Prohibition exists because it matches a majority of people's moral expectations of the society. Demand exists because people are weak, depressed, lacking in self control, etc. Rather than blame prohibition, blame people who are weak, depressed, lacking in self control, etc. As to why people are weak, depressed, lacking in self control, etc., I think you can find many reasons for this including weak/no fathers, poor education, poor opportunities due to poor education and weak parenting. Legalizing the habit may reduce cartels; more likely they will just incorporate. It won't reduce demand, fix families, or increase opportunities. The only way to do those things is to have moral/strong people that have kids and raise them well. Unfortunately, the idea of family is under attack from many outside influences such as TV, movies, laziness, et
I believe if you harm someone, you should be held responsible. I believe in stronger penalties for breaking the law.
I don't brandish my pistol in public if that's the question. I would assume that 99% of the people I come in contact with on a daily basis have no clue I am carrying a firearm.
I do not believe that gun free zones should be used. businesses who ban firearms from their grounds open themselves to spree killers and the like since shooters know the area will be free from other armed citizens. There was a case here (Jackson, MS) not that many years ago where a man started firing on people at the mall randomly. Since it was not legal to carry firearms in the mall, he was the only one there with one.
A second example from close by would be the shooting at Pearl High School. A teacher went to his car and got his pistol to stop a school shooter and in the end, no one else was hurt. (the teacher was, however, fired for having a pistol.)
Third, the shooting at Virginia Tech was stopped when two students broke federal law by retrieving handguns from their car and confronting the shooter.
--Forest C. Adcock--
No, but considering that purchasing them off of a broke Mexican soldier would cost a fraction of what it would cost to have that same weapon imported from the US.
Plus, considering that there were never G3 rifles imported in this country for civilian ownership, and even the civilian legal H&K 91 had kess than 50k rifles EVER shipped to this country, stopping in 1989, those rifles could NOT have come from the US.
--Forest C. Adcock--
Just out of curiosity, what do people who live out in the middle of nowhere do to defend themselves against thieves? It's one thing when the police are minutes away in the city, but in the outback, I'm sure that's not always the case.
I lived in the middle of nowhere, I never saw a cop, the closest police station was a 1.5 hour drive away. Some people had shotguns or rifles for hunting or protecting livestock from ferral dogs. However as another poster has pointed out there was no need to lock the doors let alone own a gun to defend themselves against thieves.
When there are 50 people in a town and one of them is a thief, it's not hard to work out who it is. Dogs take the place of a gun in the bedside table and since there are usually more dogs than people in isolated towns there is no way a stranger can even get into town without the entire population knowing about it. Wether you live in the city or the middle of nowhere a medium to large sized dog is the most effective defence against thieves. A gun is useless if your not at home to use it.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Middle of nowhere
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
"People stealing TVs from an occupied residence thereby demonstrate their willingness to destroy any opposing humans therein."
If that were true then then why do they bother sneaking in, why not just kick the door down and start shooting?
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
I don't brandish my pistol in public if that's the question.
You sound like you are responsible in regards to gun safety/etiquette, but not everyone is, it was more a question of how someone could lawfully conduct themselves while in possession of a weapon.
You know, unlike some people, when it comes to the second amendment, I don't believe in "certain, inalienable rights." I do believe that we, as Americans, do have the right to own firearms. But along with that right, I believe that we have a responsibility to carry ourselves in a safe manner while under arms. I do believe that intelligent gun control is a good thing. I also believe that there should be a law that says that if you do stupid stuff with firearms that endangers others, they should be taken from you. "Be safe or go home," pretty much.
Now how can you be safe with firearms?
First, don't buy a glock. There is no safety on almost all glocks. I believe that owning safe firearms is the first step. Yes, all of them are dangerous, but they should only be dangerous when the intent is to fire.
Second, if someone knows you have a gun, you're doing it wrong.
Third, Just like cars, some people think bigger is better, while others prefer compacts over suvs. Find what you can drive well and are comfortable with and carry that. Personally, I carry a .45. I can handle it and find it more accurate in my hands than my 9mm.
Fourth and finally, just don't be dumb. Don't point your gun at someone you don't plan on shooting. Don't "shoot to wound" because that's how most misses occur. And don't let your emotions end the life of someone who wasn't a threat.
--Forest C. Adcock--
I'm a southpaw. The safety on my 1911 sits on the outside of the pistol. The only times it has slipped off have been times when it has snagged on a counter top or table top as I was walking. Still, even with it off, a 1911 is completely safe as long as you don't do something stupid like pinning the grip safety and lightening the trigger pull. (Trust me, there are idiots out there who do that. I don't know why you would need to pin the backstrap, but they do.)
This is one of the reasons I LOVE 1911's. Between having two outside safeties, a heavy trigger, a drop safety, and (on newer models) a light firing pin which isn't affected by drops anyways, they are the most safe pistols to carry outside of single action revolvers.
--Forest C. Adcock--
um... It's no harder to kill someone with a one inch knife than with an 8 inch one. The only major difference is that with the larger one, you don't get your hand as messy.
The spinal cord, carotid artery, femoral artery, subclavian artery, radial artery, and windpipe are all within an inch of the surface. And on most people, the heart is only 2 inches down.
That doesn't detract from your point that the wto were designed for totally different things, but they can be used for either. I, for instance, use a knife daily to open boxes at work that was clearly designed for the battlefield and is even restricted to purchase by law enforcement and military for that exact reason. (even though that is a stupid, stupid law)
--Forest C. Adcock--
I'm not at all worried about somebody talking loudly. The thing that I want to avoid is mind altering chemicals involuntarily entering my body or those of others. As for the cigarette smoke that children have to endure on a daily basis from their parents and other people, there really is no recourse. I can't do anything about that, but I can try to keep the pot away from them.
If a grown adult wants to harm themselves, that I would allow. I don't think you should ever be able to legally harm innocent people.
There are 10 commandments: 01)Thou shalt love the Lord Thy God 10)Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.Matt22:34-40
You're right, I could carry an unloaded one. The problem however is that if the other person has one also, he may very well decide to use his and then what? I just yell out "bang, bang?"
Carrying an unloaded pistol is sorta like using a condom with a hole in the end. It looks right, but when you need to use it, it just doesn't get the job done.
--Forest C. Adcock--
Well, that's because people who play with toys in public are weird little nerds. Go up to any woman and ask her who she's rather be with; Luke Skywalker, or Jack fucking Bauer. She will probably pick the one who's best friend isn't a shiny little computer.
--Forest C. Adcock--
The thing that I want to avoid is mind altering chemicals involuntarily entering my body or those of others.
Your mind is not going to be "altered" by half a lungful of second-hand marijuana smoke. Hell, you can walk through a room so full of the stuff you can't even see the other side, and the worst you'll suffer is a coughing fit.
To say nothing of alcohol being at least as "mind altering" as marijuana, yet perfectly legal.
If a grown adult wants to harm themselves, that I would allow. I don't think you should ever be able to legally harm innocent people.
If that's your measure of "harm" then, damn, it's hard to see how half the things we interact with on a daily basis could be considered legal (especially given how many children are doped up these days in the name of ADD).
My problem with the Cigarette tax is that here in the states, the proceeds from the taxes mostly go into states general funds. So instead of those funds help people overcome a horrible nicotine addiction, the states and feds are doing nothing but raking in money from addictions.
Just like the billions won in lawsuits against "big tobacco". Most of that went into lawyers pockets, which in turn went into the legislator's political contributions.
turns out, there is some truth to the idea of 'follow the money trail'
Good judgment comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from bad judgment.
The fascist army took away all the guns, but I'm sure there were a lot of fascists killed by gun owners in the process.
Trying to fight a fascist government as a civilian with some small arms stashed is very hard and probably ends up badly. Fighting a fascist government without guns is impossible and always ends in death.
LOL - so your reply is "big metal toys with bullets are cooler than little plastic toys with lights! That's how I get chicks." Nice argument there.
Didn't really shoot down the whole "susbstitute for a small penis" theory.
Trying to ban firearms or a class of firearms always gets attention and instant opposition.
They are part of the nation's history and founding mythologies, plus rights of possession are in the Constitution.
Would you support the ending of free speech for one type of speech, say newspapers or the Internet?
Arms. The right to bear arms. Arms = weapons. That's it. It doesn't say your citizens have the right to bear guns. They're entitled to have weapons.
You don't allow your citizens to have nuclear weapons despite this constitutional right to weapon-ownership. You don't allow your citizens to have chemical or biological weapons despite the same amendment. Private ownership of military-grade weapons are prohibited in many cases.
Why is this? Simple. Because your governments have tried to apply reasonable limitations upon the citizens' constitutional right. What I - and the rest of the world - am telling you is that you're still allowing unreasonably free access to guns. Stop it.
The next time someone claims they've got the legal right to own a gun, throw a dictionary at them.
"Oh no... he found the
But not good guns.
You don't always need good, you usually just need good enough.
Do you know what happened with civilian gun owners during Spanish Civil War? The nationalist (fascist) army take all guns (including hunting ones) from all civilians. If you didn't give them willingly, you got killed at once. A lot of people got killed because the had a gun and were too stuborn to just give it to the government.
And how many of those people took their gun and went to join the Republican forces?
And how did the fascist army know which civilians had guns? Probably from gun registration. That's why gun registration is such a bad idea.
For thousands of years the percentage of people who consume some alcoholic beverage was relatively high, and is tightly integrated with many cultures. It can also be made just about anywhere with just about anything.
Sounds a lot like pot. It's been used by humans for thousands of years (for non-narcotic purposes too, like making the paper for the Declaration of Independence), and producing it is as simple as planting a seed.
And why should they?
Suppose the government decided to ban apples, saying they were poisonous (the seeds are). And then a giant "apple war" started because of the illegal apple trade.
Why should I stop eating apples just because some assholes in government said I shouldn't eat them? It's my right as a human being to eat any naturally-growing substance I want. It's my body, and my choice.
So I say FUCK YOU to anyone saying I shouldn't consume apples because of a ridiculous ban on them.
The US Supreme Court ruled on this in 2008 with DC v Heller.
Arms does not mean weapons. Weapons are what the military uses, arms are what US citizens have the right to keep and bear. It's spelled out in the majority opinion.
"The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity. For instance, Cunningham’s legal dictionary gave as an example of usage: “Servants and labourers shall use bows and arrows on Sundays, &c. and not bear other arms.”'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html
If you and the rest of the world don't like how the Second Amendment is enacted in the United States at the Federal or state level, come over and make us stop it.
The cavalier right of USians to own guns means drug dealers have easy access to them in Mexico and elsewhere.
The pathetic controls in place in the USA has a direct impact in the lives of Mexicans south of the border.
Only sheer hypocrisy can turn a blind eye to this.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
And they are not immerse in a bloodbath between alcohol traffickers.
The abundant supply of weapons, courtesy of the idiocy that is the pro-gun lobby's interpretation of the US Constitution, is surely a factor in the tragedy that is becoming life in some places in Mexico.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
So you really believe that armed minorities in Germany would have managed to oppose in any significant way the German army?
It took the might of the Soviet Union with collaboration of the US and what was left of the British army (after they were kicked out from Continental Europe by Hitler) to stop the Nazis.
If you truly believe that a rag tag resistance would have hindered in any way the might of the German army (and people, you say the disarmed the German people like if they were not the brainwashed, humiliated populace looking for a Messiah to lead them into glory).
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Many people in Africa or India, where big carnivores roam freely, have got no access to guns.
They remain in relatively safety by being wise in their interactions with wild animals in nature.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Use a gun instead of a good lock and door.
that is the difference in mentality between people that don't have a fetishist attachment to weapons and other people that do.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Many politicians are decent people and understand that they can't do what you are suggesting.
As for Mexicans causing the bloodbath, that is all well and good, but we didn't have drug dealers before USians decide to evade reality by intoxicating themselves in epic proportions (when your last three Presidents admit to have used drugs, what hope is there?)
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
The Fascist fantasises of some of you are quite amusing.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Mexicans acquired the legal right to possess weapons for self defense last term of Congress.
That is not solving much, is it? (if anything most likely is making matters worse since now more weapons can find their way into the black market).
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
And why should they?
Did you miss the entire conversation here? The reason is to stop supporting the evil crime syndicates that are harming many many people. I have far more of a problem with that than drugs. I don't care if you use drugs. You talk about it naturally growing. Go for it. I personally don't care if you do.
But to act like there's no reason to not use drugs just because you could pick an apple off a tree.That is a huge oversight of the situation. If crime groups were illegally trafficking apples and killing people over it, you can sure as hell bet I would advise not to purchase any of their apples too.
Sorry, but this is a stupid argument. I have no responsibility to stop eating apples, regardless of other people's actions over them. The thing that's allowing the evil crime syndicates to flourish is stupid government laws banning apples, which are a perfectly naturally-growing plant. Fix the stupid laws, and there won't be any crime syndicates. Don't ask people to stop using products of nature.
All of these problems are due to an overbearing government that wants to tell everyone how to live. If people disagree with that, and crime ensues, that's not the people's fault, it's the government's. All the blood shed is on the government's hands.
Furthermore, think how horrible it would be if apples were lost forever because people stupidly obeyed their stupid government's edicts, and stopped growing them, and wiped out all naturally-growing apple trees. Who knows what other uses apples have, or what undiscovered health benefits they may have, not to mention all the culinary uses they have. Why should we give up apples forever because of some narrow-minded morons? There's various places in the world now trying to save our planet's genetic legacy in "seed banks", such as in Svalbard, but meanwhile some assholes are trying instead to destroy products of nature. This could happen to any naturally-growing plant or herb, not just apples. What will we be asked to give up next? Oranges? Tomatoes? Bananas? Every time some corporation comes up with a crappy imitation of one of these, they could bribe the government to ban another natural plant that competes with it. No thanks.
People who thumb their noses at bad laws like this are HEROES.
First, I can't believe you're seriously trying to compare the proliferation, history, and production of alcohol to marijuana. That's like trying to compare walking with scuba diving. Both may be relatively common compared to deep sea diving, but one is still orders of magnitude more.
Second, the Declaration of Independence is written on parchment. Perhaps drafts were written on paper made from hemp, but no one knows for sure. Although, hemp is almost exclusively made from cannabis strains that can't be smoked. What would be the point?
Are you seriously trying to say that marijuana is more dangerous and destructive than alcohol (a legal drug)? If so, then you're an idiot.
As for hemp, hemp is illegal in the USA, because it's so closely related to marijuana (hemp isn't great for smoking, and marijuana isn't great for fiber, but it's hard to tell them apart). Sure, you can have items made of hemp, but you're not allowed to actually grow the plant. What kind of moron would back a law that makes it illegal to grow a perfectly naturally-growing plant that's much better for the environment for uses like clothes and paper than cotton or timber?
Dude, put the pipe down. No one has said anything about how dangerous or destructive one substance or another is. The point was about the relative cultural ingraining and accessibility of various substance that might be prohibited.
They're easy to reproduce by people who want to bother with infrastructure. They can set up factories and plants to make them, it's true.
Gangs selling drugs would much rather keep infrastructure to a minimum. Extort farmers into growing the crops; ship the yield somewhere else for quick processing; ship the stuff somewhere else for sale.
They would much rather buy guns than add gun-making factories to that - or they'd already have their own gun-making factories too. Which doesn't seem to be what they're doing in Mexico.
I'm pretty sure the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan are buying weapons rather than making them, as well. I could be wrong in that; but it seems the Taliban is in a different position than even the Mexican gangs. Rather than having corrupted local governments and Federal forces, the Taliban actually IS the local governments in many areas.
The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is what punches workers in the nuts.
A tripod page is the best you can do? Laughable. Not to mention that Hitler isn't talking about Germans, but about all others. Which is not what the topic is. What he did do was disarm undesirables - the same crap that's going on in the US.
You have no idea how powerless an armed citizenry is in ensuring liberty.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
The Wikipedia article talks about disarming German Jews. Since Jews were not considered true Germans (kinda like a true Scotsman), it makes no sense to argue that Hitler disarmed Germans. Finally, point 3) seems to explicitly argue that certain German civilians were re-armed: those who could be trusted to uphold the party ideals. Kinda like gun-laws here, no? Break the law, can't carry guns anymore. The only difference is what laws need to be broken.
The only thing that really scares me about this thread is the attitude "Hitler can't happen here as long as we have guns". It misses the point on so many levels that it is a reason to get the hell out before it's too late.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
I think you're reading far too much into what I said. You're making everything black and white. All that I said is that if you are an average citizen with no lawmaking capabilities, you do have the ability to not support the cartels. I'm not saying it's the best way. I'm not saying it's the only way. But it is a way.
Also saying that a plant may have some medical use in the future as an argument as to why you should be able to recreationally use it is kind of flawed.
Also saying that a plant may have some medical use in the future as an argument as to why you should be able to recreationally use it is kind of flawed.
It's just one point. The other point is that I should never have to justify why I should "be able to" use something. Why should I have to justify why I should be able to eat apples? Same thing.
I think you're reading far too much into what I said. You're making everything black and white. All that I said is that if you are an average citizen with no lawmaking capabilities, you do have the ability to not support the cartels. I'm not saying it's the best way. I'm not saying it's the only way. But it is a way.
It's a horrible way, because it means voluntarily giving up your liberties. What would have happened if people did as you say, and didn't drink alcohol during Prohibition? We'd still have Prohibition now. I'm not a big drinker, but I appreciate a nice glass of wine now and then, and it'd suck to give that up just because of some religious assholes. If you want liberties, you have to exercise them, even when someone has attempted to take them away.
If people caved in every time one of our liberties were taken away, pretty soon we wouldn't have any of them.
They actually, as Internettoughguy mentions, eased restrictions on gun ownership as well as created more guns. Of course they put more restrictions on Jews, these are the fucking Nazis were talking about, but if you consider the original "dictators disarm their citizens" argument I would never suggest the Jews were Nazi citizens.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics
Horror & SciFi Erotic Nudes
Sorry, I was linking to a summary of the Treaty more for the military aspects, that is not my own take on it which I freely admit my understanding of the whole does not approach that of someone who has intimately studied it. I am familiar with the tactic you mention and am unsurprised at it's use.
Horror & SciFi Erotic Nudes
Depending on what state you lived in, the post-prohibition drinking age (which is what the parent speaks to) was generally 18 or 21, with Colorado not having a minimum age until 1945, and Ohio's at 16 until 1935.
I was born in May of 1965, which put me right in the middle of the big changeover in Virginia between 1981 and 1985. Can, Can't. Can, Can't, etc. From the link above:
[Virginia's drinking age was] Raised to 19 in 1981 for off-premises consumption, raised to 19 for all beer sales in 1983, [and] raised to 21 in 1985.
See this, also.
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
I don't mean to say that drug gangs are branching into arms manufacturing (although they could, I'm sure it wouldn't be as profitable as their core business, and there are plenty of arms manufacturers as it is). My point was simply that making guns isn't as difficult as many seem to believe. I saw an investigative report within the past year or two showing small arms manufacturing going on inside a small building in one of the more lawless regions of Pakistan.
.50 cal Ma Deuces), their most convenient source is the Mexican armed forces and police, many of whom are already on the gangs' payrolls.
The drug gangs in question are getting their guns from a number of sources. Keep in mind that to get full auto M-16s (not to mention the
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
For most of the history, [relatively diluted] alcohol was the only drug consumed in most of the civilized world, and public drunkenness was severely discouraged by overwhelming majority of society.
Countries with widespread drug use had their development slowed down, what contributed to their eventual colonization by "merely occasionally drunk" members of the Western civilization.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Mexico does not produce any kind of assault rifle at all. The sheer number of guns (plus 60k rifles, grannades, 50mm barrett ), makes it hard for me to buy what you say about them coming from the mexican army. Not even they have this number of assault rifles.
I also dont think that they necesarrily come from the legal US market. But I do think that SOME in that market have enough connections and ways to smuggle them or otherwise get them from israel and even from canada and then to sell them to the cartels who, in turn, pass them through tunnels they already have. The same ones they use to pass drugs and people to the US.
Nothing about this thing is black and white. Nothing at all.
NO SIG
This is absolutely true. Thing is the mexican president is being pressured into a legalization debate. Now him, being the conservative asshole he is, prefers to pressure the U.S. by saying the problem is the guns, when most of the guns the narcs use, are ak47s which I dont think are that popular in the US. They are popular in all of central america though, and Chavez in Venezuela, and the FARC in colombia probably buy them and/or build them by the hundreds of thousends each year.
NO SIG
No. That's a bullshit amount of drugs. We don't want a wishy-washy legalization for "personal use" that still outlaws drug distribution; but rather products that can be fully integrated into the per capita index. It's like in sweden to be a hooker is legal but to solicit sex service from a hooker is ilegal. As well as the prohibition times in which a wishy-washy legalization would've done squat; we need the same here. The drugs ARE NOT THE PROBLEM ANYMORE. I don't know why the american people still can't wrap their heads around it. The narcotic effects of drugs HAVE STOPPED BEING THE PROBLEM. Do you know how much mexican people have died during this war? 28000. Let that number sink in DEEP. Twenty eight thousand people have been murdered in the last 4 years. That's 28 000 families without a father, mother or both. That's about 56 000 parent-less children. That's 28 000 futures destroyed. A simple search through Wolfram Alpha shows that in the same time almost 12 000 americans have died to substance abuse and cartel related matters. A simple mathematical operation tells us that from every 3 people that died from getting high, 7 of my own people die killed by the cartels. Most of them are INNOCENT. Continue to NOT helping us, US Government. Continue to get high, stupid junkie americans. There is blood in their hands. Shed by american bullets.
True but it is certainly 21 in every state now according to that WP link.
It's easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.
I don't do needles, I shower more often than a lot of non-users I know, and I keep a slight "friendly hobo" style, but nothing too intrusive. I'm treated as if I raped and killed my mother, and every time something goes missing at school, they keep looking for me, even though I was in one room with 24 other people to confirm it, and I had not left the room, for instance. Please excuse my poor grammar, I have the habit of doing mind dumps when agitated. Peace.
I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
Fast food in moderate amounts is harmless. Weed is harmless in any realistic amount. Amphetamine-like substances are relatively harmless as well, and some of them are about as problematic as weed, when combined with some very easily accessible protective agents (vitamines C and E, some antioxidants found in cosmetics, and weed itself). I can't come up with any popular psychedelic from any other chemical class that proves to be anything but completely (physilogically) risk-free. Smoking is actually cutting health costs in the long term (the people that are liable to problems die early). That just leaves just a couple of problematic substances, large quantities of fast food, and alcohol as sin tax candidates.
I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
I'd rather go Red Queen on the @$$|-|0|_3 who thought up this policy. You wanna know what the profilactic for smokers illnesses? Weed and a healthy diet.
I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
You don't know much about chemistry do you? You really think the only way to make meth is with volatile solvents? Please do some reasearch.
I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
Coce leaves, or low concetration freebase alcohol solution nasal spray are about as dangerous and addicting as coffee.
I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
What, are you asking for a picture or something? ...fag
--Forest C. Adcock--
Oh my god. Is this a joke? Are you trying to be the stereotypical small-dick homophobic macho man?
Do you have a bushy mustache and wear gold chains, too? How did you end up on Slashdot? Wrong turn looking for naked pictures of Snooki?
How do you turn you asking about my penis into me being the one who's perverted here?
And what does my facial hair have to do with anything?
--Forest C. Adcock--