Terrorist training camps on US soil?

[icu812]

Don't know if this has been posted or not but I received this video link in an email today. Interesting.

http://shock.military.com/Shock/videos.do?displayContent=185279&page=5

[SintonFan]

I have heard of this, but never saw the video.
Thank you for posting this.:)

[sinton66]

It aired here (Houston) on tv last week.

[waterboy]

It's hard to believe that the government will allow these people to do this, knowing full well what they are up to. They'll bust somebody like a David Koresh in Waco, but will leave these zealots alone. Government at its finest.:dispntd:

[zebrablue2]

Originally posted by waterboy
It's hard to believe that the government will allow these people to do this, knowing full well what they are up to. They'll bust somebody like a David Koresh in Waco, but will leave these zealots alone. Government at its finest.:dispntd:


:dispntd: also. these bunch of clowns are up to no good. the government has to ask the question: where is the funding for this coming from? could any of us on the board run around outside and train for, well that leads to another question: what the hell are they training for? things that are of no use and no good to the US. scary indeed. one of these on the map looks to be not far from houston. the media needs to get really involved with this group. lets give them all the attention they want, or do not want. we all need to keep up with the no good they are up to..

[Trashman]

With the luck we have had as a nation lately; the camps will probably qualify and get economic stimulus money.:thinking:

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by Trashman
With the luck we have had as a nation lately; the camps will probably qualify and get economic stimulus money.:thinking:



keep the comments about the President out of your posts

In reality how is our Government suppose to do anything about it? Unless they actually do something that is against the law the Government's hands are tied.
I know everyone isn't really advocating that the Government actually use a little judgement on what these people might actually be up to!!!!!!!!! Americans don't tolerate judgement calls from their Government very well.

[waterboy]

Look what the government did in Waco to David Koresh and his followers. How would raiding these terrorist camps be any different? They have illegal weapons, too. They've even got them on video. How can the government not do something about these idiots, especially since they are actually a threat to national security, unlike Waco? How many times has the ATF raided militia training camps in the past? Wasn't there a raid on a similar bunch of militiamen in Montana, Idaho, or Washington a few years ago? Yet they allow these people to get away with it.....:dispntd:

[Trashman]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
keep the comments about the President out of your posts

In reality how is our Government suppose to do anything about it? Unless they actually do something that is against the law the Government's hands are tied.
I know everyone isn't really advocating that the Government actually use a little judgement on what these people might actually be up to!!!!!!!!! Americans don't tolerate judgement calls from their Government very well.

I did not mention the President in my post. I would call you an unflatering name, but that is probabably what you would want.:crazy:

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by Trashman
I did not mention the President in my post. I would call you an unflatering name, but that is probabably what you would want.:crazy:


I assume a mod changed my post and wrote that red statement directing it at me. I did not direct it at you.

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by waterboy
Look what the government did in Waco to David Koresh and his followers. How would raiding these terrorist camps be any different? They have illegal weapons, too. They've even got them on video. How can the government not do something about these idiots, especially since they are actually a threat to national security, unlike Waco? How many times has the ATF raided militia training camps in the past? Wasn't there a raid on a similar bunch of militiamen in Montana, Idaho, or Washington a few years ago? Yet they allow these people to get away with it.....:dispntd:


I agree 100% that if these people are what this report says they are then we should put a stop to it. My point is that you are making bold statements about the Government based on a story posted by someone who has as big of an agenda as those depicted in the story. I would assume our Government has a close eye on these camps if they truly exist.
And David Kuresh was holding children and women against their will and forcing young girls to have his babies. The compound wasn't raided because of weapons......

[Trashman]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
I assume a mod changed my post and wrote that red statement directing it at me. I did not direct it at you.

Sorry about that, please accept my apoligy.:inlove:

[sinton66]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
keep the comments about the President out of your posts

In reality how is our Government suppose to do anything about it? Unless they actually do something that is against the law the Government's hands are tied.
I know everyone isn't really advocating that the Government actually use a little judgement on what these people might actually be up to!!!!!!!!! Americans don't tolerate judgement calls from their Government very well.

That's the same argument law enforcement and politicians used when asked why they didn't stop the 911 terrorists from taking flying lessons in Florida. It's the same argument Clinton used when asked why he didn't take Bin Laden when Mossad offered him on a silver platter TWICE.

It's against federal law to possess automatic weapons and military style assault weapons. See any of those in the videos?

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by sinton66
That's the same argument law enforcement and politicians used when asked why they didn't stop the 911 terrorists from taking flying lessons in Florida. It's the same argument Clinton used when asked why he didn't take Bin Laden when Mossad offered him on a silver platter TWICE.

It's against federal law to possess automatic weapons and military style assault weapons. See any of those in the videos? your facts are wrong about Mossad and Bin Laden.
1. they wouldn't have offered him to anyone, they would have killed him
2. it was Sudan and Saudia Arabia who played hot potato with his asylum.

Plenty dropped the ball on him, all the way back to the Reagan years and allowing Afghanistan to fall into disarray after we helped them rid themselves of the Russians.

**I didn't mean for that to sound like I was flaming ya about anything, just perhaps you confused a few facts up.

[sinton66]

I read and heard two different reports that said Mossad offered to deliver Bin Laden twice, and they were told by Clinton that he hadn't committed any crimes here so he didn't want him. I also saw and heard Clinton respond to that particular question that same way in a tv interview. Believe whatever you choose, I know what I read, heard, and saw.

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by sinton66
I read and heard two different reports that said Mossad offered to deliver Bin Laden twice, and they were told by Clinton that he hadn't committed any crimes here so he didn't want him. I also saw and heard Clinton respond to that particular question that same way in a tv interview. Believe whatever you choose, I know what I read, heard, and saw. I do believe what I know is factually proven, not political conjecture from those trying to paint a picture for their viewers. Only people who ever substantiated anything about offers were the former Sudanese officials themselves. Really reliable let me tell ya. Doesn't matter, a crippled man on dialysis has managed to elude for this long, best VERIFIABLE opportunity to capture him was in Tora Bora, no political wrangling of the fact that we SHOULD have had him at Tora Bora! The officers in charge of those missions have even written books.

[pirate4state]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
I assume a mod changed my post and wrote that red statement directing it at me. I did not direct it at you. that's correct...forgot to add my "~p4s"

carry on

[sinton66]

Originally posted by DDBooger
I do believe what I know is factually proven, not political conjecture from those trying to paint a picture for their viewers. Only people who ever substantiated anything about offers were the former Sudanese officials themselves. Really reliable let me tell ya. Doesn't matter, a crippled man on dialysis has managed to elude for this long, best VERIFIABLE opportunity to capture him was in Tora Bora, no political wrangling of the fact that we SHOULD have had him at Tora Bora! The officers in charge of those missions have even written books.

Could that posibly be the only people you know of that substantiated it? Neither the interview or the article I read was on Fox, so don't go there.

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by sinton66
Could that posibly be the only people you know of that substantiated it? Neither the interview or the article I read was on Fox, so don't go there.
by all means s66 if you have something SUBSTANTIATED I'd love to see it! These things fascinate me. Indulge me! :)

[sinton66]

I'd have to spend some time and research it. Too long ago for this feeble old brain. Let me see what I can find.

Here's one I found. Sudan was ONE of the offers. About halfway down the page is an account of another offer by "someone whose name I can't mention". :
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/12/5/153637.shtml

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by sinton66
I'd have to spend some time and research it. Too long ago for this feeble old brain. Let me see what I can find.

Here's one I found. Sudan was ONE of the offers. About halfway down the page is an account of another offer by "someone whose name I can't mention". :
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/12/5/153637.shtml I question its objectivity, however, FACTCHECK has a good write up.
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_bill_clinton_pass_up_a_chance_1.html

[sinton66]

Originally posted by DDBooger
I question its objectivity, however, FACTCHECK has a good write up.
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_bill_clinton_pass_up_a_chance_1.html

Questionable objectivity from a Clinton aide? It's his own guy that made these claims.

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by sinton66
Questionable objectivity from a Clinton aide? It's his own guy that made these claims. it's been investigated, on one side you have a rogue nation, sponsor of terror attempted to alleviate the label (which means billions in investing) and then you have the other side likely covering up a bit. At the same point, my link makes a good point, at the time we had little to no evidence and we are creating a villain at a point in time when no one knew what he was capable of (he wasn't the TRUE architect of 9/11 anyways), needless to say, in the pic with Rummy shakin hands with Saddam, we KNEW he was a bad man and Rummy should have shot him between the eyes by the same premise we hold Clinton to with regards to Osama. History is nothing but revisionististic, historiography, we'll never know the whole truth. But we know at the time, he was hardly the man he would become later. And in a nation as ours, we'd have to prove something, where as if given to the Saudi's he'd have no trial, just execution, if anything, Clinton has little room to chastize Bush for his set up of CIA secret bases in Eastern Europe and the middle east for the very same reasons. Only Clinton didn't initiate it, he hoped Saudia Arabia would take the initiative who feared Osama, rightfully so, he was dying to destroy the Kingdom (American allies). However they feared creating a martyr and starting something really bad in Saudia Arabia

**by the way no mention of Mossad in any links. And if you know your clandestine forces history, Israeli's are our allies, but Mossad has a much dicier history with CIA and US. A lot of animosity was held over our protection of certain arabs they targeted. Foreign diplomacy and ally lines blur behind closed doors. Our biggest military ally in the middle east is Jewish, our biggest in terms of economic interest a Muslim one. Compound that with Turks as allies against the Russians, Iraqi's against the Iranians, you can see how things that happened behind the scenes were very shady. Mossad were some bad boys, but the CIA was hardly friendly with them and imagining them offering up a person we'd try when they could kill him just makes no sense.

we don't have to agree, it is what it is.

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by sinton66
That's the same argument law enforcement and politicians used when asked why they didn't stop the 911 terrorists from taking flying lessons in Florida. It's the same argument Clinton used when asked why he didn't take Bin Laden when Mossad offered him on a silver platter TWICE.

It's against federal law to possess automatic weapons and military style assault weapons. See any of those in the videos?



Would you feel the same way if the feds raided a militant compound in Montana and arrested a bunch of Americans? I would bet you wouldn't. If these camps truely represent a threat to the country then the Feds should take them out without a second thought. But don't they have to actually represent a real threat and not just appear to represent a threat?

[zebrablue2]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
Would you feel the same way if the feds raided a militant compound in Montana and arrested a bunch of Americans? I would bet you wouldn't. If these camps truely represent a threat to the country then the Feds should take them out without a second thought. But don't they have to actually represent a real threat and not just appear to represent a threat?


we have the best media coverage in the world. I would tell them to go in and interview each and every day. I would live with these folks, until they tell us what the heck they are doing here, and training for.. the army should go in and recruit... these people are training hard-- for what... we need to know...

[sinton66]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
Would you feel the same way if the feds raided a militant compound in Montana and arrested a bunch of Americans? I would bet you wouldn't. If these camps truely represent a threat to the country then the Feds should take them out without a second thought. But don't they have to actually represent a real threat and not just appear to represent a threat?

You said they have to have committed a crime, I said they already have as evidenced in the video. Displaying illegal weapons should easily qualify for a search warrant. To answer your question about Montana, I would have to know more about the organization to feel any differently.

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by sinton66
You said they have to have committed a crime, I said they already have as evidenced in the video. Displaying illegal weapons should easily qualify for a search warrant. To answer your question about Montana, I would have to know more about the organization to feel any differently.


I have a picture of YOU holding hands with George Metesky while making bombs.(not really!). Should the Feds raid your homestead and shoot you up based on that picture?????? This was a third party documentary. Not just a normal third party but a third party with a huge agenda. An agenda that makes Micheal Moores look trivial. This group's entire existence is based on the total eradication of another group who's religious and cultural beliefs are different than their own.
And I'm pretty sure the Feds have a constant eye on these people.

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by sinton66
To answer your question about Montana, I would have to know more about the organization to feel any differently. [/B]


What does it matter if they have illegal weapons????

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by zebrablue2
we have the best media coverage in the world. I would tell them to go in and interview each and every day. I would live with these folks, until they tell us what the heck they are doing here, and training for.. the army should go in and recruit... these people are training hard-- for what... we need to know...
.
The left leaning media would never do that. They seem to have allied themselves with terrorist since they both hate America. Check that, one hates America while the other is self-loathing. They have a common enemy.:doh:
I'll just lightly float that out there...

[sinton66]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
What does it matter if they have illegal weapons????

I'd have to know what they stand for. Yes, I "judge" American citizens by a different standard. So what? I know a number of people with weapons that have been "declared" illegal. I also know they are no threat to this country. I know what they are patriots and have no objection to them having the weapons.

[sinton66]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
I have a picture of YOU holding hands with George Metesky while making bombs.(not really!). Should the Feds raid your homestead and shoot you up based on that picture?????? This was a third party documentary. Not just a normal third party but a third party with a huge agenda. An agenda that makes Micheal Moores look trivial. This group's entire existence is based on the total eradication of another group who's religious and cultural beliefs are different than their own.
And I'm pretty sure the Feds have a constant eye on these people.

I didn't say anything about a raid or shooting anybody up. I said it was sufficient grounds for a search warrant if the feds want to know what these folks are about. If they have nothing to hide, they should have nothing to fear as long as they don't over-react and do something stupid.

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by sinton66
I didn't say anything about a raid or shooting anybody up. I said it was sufficient grounds for a search warrant if the feds want to know what these folks are about. If they have nothing to hide, they should have nothing to fear as long as they don't over-react and do something stupid.


Yea! I agree. I'm just attempting to be the voice of reason in this conversation and it really goes against my nature.:D

The laws changed last year I think that made it illegal for law enforcement to use a single informant as reason for action. Wouldn't this documentary also be considered a "single informant"? Mark my words, if the law goes in for a warranted search and those people over-react and someone gets killed all these people yelling about the Government not doing something will be the first ones yelling about the Government using too much force and poking their nose where it doesn't belong. Like I said before....damned if you do-damned if you don't.

[sinton66]

A single source can be used for search warrant purposes. Whether or not they obtain one depends entirely on the Judge they "bend the ear" of.

Anything beyond a simple search may require more verification from independant sources. That too most likely depends upon whether they can find a Judge who "leans" their direction. You better believe they know where and how each one practices his profession.

[sinfan75]

You heard who Missouri governor considers a terrorist? Anyone who flies the American flag in their front yard or any flag promoting freedom, wear T-shirts promoting freedom and/or has Ron Paul bumper sticker on their vehicle. :D It's true. And speakin of terrorists a way that's bein considered to get the guns from the citizens, if a person has ANY kind of police record you'd be considered a terrorist and not be allowed to buy a gun. I'm not talkin about just people who did time in pen. I'm talkinabout anybody who did a night in the city or county jails for whatever reason you would be considered a terrorist and not be allowed to purchase a gun. Weird, huh!

[Phil C]

What a contradict ion. There is talk about everyone giving up their guns and then we allow these type of things. That would really put us in a helpless stage which is already bad in the first place. Like I have posted:

"IF GUNS ARE OUTLAWED ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE GUNS!!"

:mad:

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by sinfan75
You heard who Missouri governor considers a terrorist? Anyone who flies the American flag in their front yard or any flag promoting freedom, wear T-shirts promoting freedom and/or has Ron Paul bumper sticker on their vehicle. :D It's true. And speakin of terrorists a way that's bein considered to get the guns from the citizens, if a person has ANY kind of police record you'd be considered a terrorist and not be allowed to buy a gun. I'm not talkin about just people who did time in pen. I'm talkinabout anybody who did a night in the city or county jails for whatever reason you would be considered a terrorist and not be allowed to purchase a gun. Weird, huh!


I find it kind of odd that a seemingly intelligent politician does not realize that if you make guns illegal then you would basically create a demand for illegal guns which would naturally create a supply. The moronic attitude that if you make them illegal it would keep them out of the hands of crimminals seems like something a child would think yet these grown men and women think like this. Or more likley these people understand this concept but in an effort to satisfy the more ridiculous segment of our society they put up a front. Either way it is a sad thing.

[rockdale80]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
I find it kind of odd that a seemingly intelligent politician does not realize that if you make guns illegal then you would basically create a demand for illegal guns which would naturally create a supply. The moronic attitude that if you make them illegal it would keep them out of the hands of crimminals seems like something a child would think yet these grown men and women think like this. Or more likley these people understand this concept but in an effort to satisfy the more ridiculous segment of our society they put up a front. Either way it is a sad thing.


Obviously you watch too much FOX news.

I love your fear and smear tactics. Typical of a certain party. You have nothing to be afraid of though. Your guns are safe...

:rolleyes:

[Phil C]

Originally posted by rockdale80
Obviously you watch too much FOX news.

I love your fear and smear tactics. Typical of a certain party. You have nothing to be afraid of though. Your guns are safe...

:rolleyes:

His source may have been the New York Times!

:eek:

[rockdale80]

Originally posted by Phil C
His source may have been the New York Times!

:eek:

Or it could have been Fox News. :hand:

This is the same strawman agrument they run with on a daily basis. Somehow making it more difficult to buy a gun has turned into abolishment of guns period. This is the same argument that was made when Clinton imposed the assualt weapons ban, but realistically the crime rates dropped under his watch. Its weird....

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by rockdale80
Obviously you watch too much FOX news.

I love your fear and smear tactics. Typical of a certain party. You have nothing to be afraid of though. Your guns are safe...

:rolleyes:


Fear and Smear?? Who am I smearing and what do I have to fear? I don't even own guns and could not care less if anyone ever owns a gun. I was commenting on the stupidity of some people who think if you make them illegal it will somehow help with the crime rate. Perhaps these people should take a look at the illegal drug trade in this country and the avenues of crime that are created from the illegal status of it. And I agree 100% that smear and fear tactics are typical of the left but that is NOT my affiliation. At least we agree on that one.....

[Farmersfan]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by rockdale80
Somehow making it more difficult to buy a gun has turned into abolishment of guns period.



This arguement is not different than trying to make all guns illegal. The same principles apply. Making it more difficult to purchase guns would only serve to make it more difficult for law abiding citizens to purchase guns. The crimminal element would not even be slowed down. The more difficult they make it the more crimminal elements are brought into it. Not fear & smear! Just common sense......;)

[rockdale80]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
[QUOTE]Originally posted by rockdale80
Somehow making it more difficult to buy a gun has turned into abolishment of guns period.

Under Clinton:

This arguement is not different than trying to make all guns illegal. The same principles apply. Making it more difficult to purchase guns would only serve to make it more difficult for law abiding citizens to purchase guns. The crimminal element would not even be slowed down. The more difficult they make it the more crimminal elements are brought into it. Not fear & smear! Just common sense......;)


THEN: Gun violence reaches record levels.
Gun violence reached its highest point in 20 years; a record 565,000 Americans were victims of gun crime in 1992. Murders by juveniles increased by 65 percent between 1987 and 1993, reaching the highest level ever in 1993. In 1992, an average of nearly 15 children every day were killed by firearms through violence, accidents or suicides.
NOW: Common sense gun safety laws bring down gun crime by 40 percent.
President Clinton fought the gun lobby and won common sense gun safety laws including the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban. Under the Clinton-Gore Administration, overall gun crime has declined 40 percent, and firearms related homicides committed by juveniles have dropped by nearly 50 percent. There were 227,000 fewer gun crimes in 1999 than 1992, and 1,246 fewer children were killed by guns than in 1992.
Background checks performed under the Brady Law have prevented more than 611,000 felons, fugitives and domestic abusers from buying a gun.
The Clinton-Gore Administration has worked with state and local governments to increase prosecution of gun crime. Since 1992, the number of federal firearms cases has increased 16 percent, and as a result of this Administration’s unprecedented partnership with states and localities, overall gun prosecutions - federal, state, and local combined — are up 22 percent. In addition, federal gun offenders are serving sentences that are about two years longer than in 1992 and the number of serious gun offenders sent to federal prison for more than five years is up more than 41 percent.
Clinton-Gore Administration U.S. Attorneys in Richmond (Project Exile) and Boston (Operation Ceasefire) were instrumental in innovative efforts to crack down on armed drug traffickers, violent criminals, gang members and violent youth which has helped to reduce crime in these cities. The Clinton-Gore Administration has also implemented a comprehensive crime gun tracing initiative — the Youth Crime Gun Interdiction Initiative — in 38 cities to trace crime guns and identify and arrest illegal gun traffickers.
Finally, to combat violence in schools, the Clinton-Gore Administration enacted the Gun Free Schools Act, which requires schools to adopt zero-tolerance policies toward guns in schools and expel students bringing firearms to school. Over the 1996-98 school years, nearly 10,000 students were expelled from public schools for bringing a firearm to school.


Now you know (http://clinton5.nara.gov/WH/Accomplishments/eightyears-06.html)

Just something to think about when saying gun control doesnt work. I like my guns as much as anyone, but to say everyone should have one is ludacris. Clearly some people have no business owning one. What is wrong with that logic? I also have never needed a gun so bad that a wait for a background check hindered me in the least bit. ;)

Also, who taught you right from left. :thinking: :D

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by rockdale80
THEN: Gun violence reaches record levels.
Gun violence reached its highest point in 20 years; a record 565,000 Americans were victims of gun crime in 1992. Murders by juveniles increased by 65 percent between 1987 and 1993, reaching the highest level ever in 1993. In 1992, an average of nearly 15 children every day were killed by firearms through violence, accidents or suicides.
NOW: Common sense gun safety laws bring down gun crime by 40 percent.
President Clinton fought the gun lobby and won common sense gun safety laws including the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban. Under the Clinton-Gore Administration, overall gun crime has declined 40 percent, and firearms related homicides committed by juveniles have dropped by nearly 50 percent. There were 227,000 fewer gun crimes in 1999 than 1992, and 1,246 fewer children were killed by guns than in 1992.
Background checks performed under the Brady Law have prevented more than 611,000 felons, fugitives and domestic abusers from buying a gun.
The Clinton-Gore Administration has worked with state and local governments to increase prosecution of gun crime. Since 1992, the number of federal firearms cases has increased 16 percent, and as a result of this Administration’s unprecedented partnership with states and localities, overall gun prosecutions - federal, state, and local combined — are up 22 percent. In addition, federal gun offenders are serving sentences that are about two years longer than in 1992 and the number of serious gun offenders sent to federal prison for more than five years is up more than 41 percent.
Clinton-Gore Administration U.S. Attorneys in Richmond (Project Exile) and Boston (Operation Ceasefire) were instrumental in innovative efforts to crack down on armed drug traffickers, violent criminals, gang members and violent youth which has helped to reduce crime in these cities. The Clinton-Gore Administration has also implemented a comprehensive crime gun tracing initiative — the Youth Crime Gun Interdiction Initiative — in 38 cities to trace crime guns and identify and arrest illegal gun traffickers.
Finally, to combat violence in schools, the Clinton-Gore Administration enacted the Gun Free Schools Act, which requires schools to adopt zero-tolerance policies toward guns in schools and expel students bringing firearms to school. Over the 1996-98 school years, nearly 10,000 students were expelled from public schools for bringing a firearm to school.


Now you know (http://clinton5.nara.gov/WH/Accomplishments/eightyears-06.html)

Just something to think about when saying gun control doesnt work. I like my guns as much as anyone, but to say everyone should have one is ludacris. Clearly some people have no business owning one. What is wrong with that logic? I also have never needed a gun so bad that a wait for a background check hindered me in the least bit. ;)

Also, who taught you right from left. :thinking: :D


That's a nice bit of partisan propaganda you got there big boy!!!!!
But here is a link to the truth without all the slanted statistics that politicians provide for you....... even though some improvements can be found for gun control support it is a FACT that overall it provides ZERO benefit for the public. All that gun control accomplishes is to make it easier for crooks to do their job............Please make special note of the statistic that states "It was conducted with the most precise criteria off all such studies, and estimates that Americans use firearms to defend themselves from criminals between 1,900,000 and 2,500,000 times per year."
And you might also find the FACTS on Clinton's gun control policies interesting because it is obvious you have been misled.......

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
That's a nice bit of partisan propaganda you got there big boy!!!!!
But here is a link to the truth without all the slanted statistics that politicians provide for you....... even though some improvements can be found for gun control support it is a FACT that overall it provides ZERO benefit for the public. All that gun control accomplishes is to make it easier for crooks to do their job............Please make special note of the statistic that states "It was conducted with the most precise criteria off all such studies, and estimates that Americans use firearms to defend themselves from criminals between 1,900,000 and 2,500,000 times per year."
And you might also find the FACTS on Clinton's gun control policies interesting because it is obvious you have been misled.......

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

How about a website that allows everyone to pick his/her side and get facts to back up his/her opinion. You can find for/against almost any gun control topic here and that way EVERYONE can prove their point by statistics.

http://socialissues.wiseto.com/Topics/GunControl1/

Just goes to show statistics often can be used however you want to skew them. The truth of the matter is the US has the highest gun ownership and the highest murder rate by guns in the civilized world. Can legislation stop that statistic? I know it won't if there is no legislation controlling gun ownership. I don't know if more legislation will stop or slow the problem.

Just to play devil's advocate, if Americans finally get sick and tired of being on the upper end of violent crime rates, the backlash against guns will be far worse than it is today, so why not at least try to keep guns out of the hands of criminals even if it causes a little discomfort to those who would advocate they should be allowed to own whatever they want, including fully automatic weapons.

And don't start quoting the second amendment to me. That amendment is still being debated as to it's true meaning over 223 years later.

[rockdale80]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
That's a nice bit of partisan propaganda you got there big boy!!!!!
But here is a link to the truth without all the slanted statistics that politicians provide for you....... even though some improvements can be found for gun control support it is a FACT that overall it provides ZERO benefit for the public. All that gun control accomplishes is to make it easier for crooks to do their job............Please make special note of the statistic that states "It was conducted with the most precise criteria off all such studies, and estimates that Americans use firearms to defend themselves from criminals between 1,900,000 and 2,500,000 times per year."
And you might also find the FACTS on Clinton's gun control policies interesting because it is obvious you have been misled.......

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

We are talking apples and oranges. Why not attempt to keep the guns out of the hands of criminals? I am not talking about law abiding citizens. They should be able to purchase guns at their discretion and can.

Why is it propaganda? Because you dont agree with it?:thinking:

[Txbroadcaster]

gun control is one of those ideas that ON PAPER should work, keep guns away from the criminals thru legislation, but the problem is criminal is not going to say oh crap guns are illegal so I cant use them now. they will always be able to get a gun when they need a gun

[sinton66]

Why can't the US government enforce the gun laws they already have on the books? Because the criminals pay no attention to it. They buy what they want on the black market both in the US and overseas. They don't care what it costs because they don't work to EARN their money like the rest of us. Normal law abiding citizens are the only ones that are inconvenienced and made into new criminals by act of law.

Look at what's happening on the Mexican Border. How is more US gun control legislation going to change any of that? It won't, period. If the cartels manage to beat back the Mexican military, what's to stop them from spreading their disease on this side of the border? (In fact, they already are, and some have the SUPPORT of the Mexican Military).

Look at what's happening with the gangs right here in the US. How long do you think it'll be until they begin to support the Mexican Cartels?

If any of you think for a second that the threat of foreign invasion isn't real, it's time to wake up and smell the coffee. With the drug cartels, it's simply a matter of time. They have more money than the Mexican government and they pay better. They obviously don't have much problem obtaining weapons. Personally, I think our federal government has more pressing issues than gun control right now. We need troops on the border.

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by sinton66
Why can't the US government enforce the gun laws they already have on the books? Because the criminals pay no attention to it. They buy what they want on the black market both in the US and overseas. They don't care what it costs because they don't work to EARN their money like the rest of us. Normal law abiding citizens are the only ones that are inconvenienced and made into new criminals by act of law.

Look at what's happening on the Mexican Border. How is more US gun control legislation going to change any of that? It won't, period. If the cartels manage to beat back the Mexican military, what's to stop them from spreading their disease on this side of the border? (In fact, they already are, and some have the SUPPORT of the Mexican Military).

Look at what's happening with the gangs right here in the US. How long do you think it'll be until they begin to support the Mexican Cartels?

If any of you think for a second that the threat of foreign invasion isn't real, it's time to wake up and smell the coffee. With the drug cartels, it's simply a matter of time. They have more money than the Mexican government and they pay better. They obviously don't have much problem obtaining weapons. Personally, I think our federal government has more pressing issues than gun control right now. We need troops on the border.
With that line of thinking, do you agree we should legalize drugs because people will get them anyways and fill the coffers of the drug cartels. We demonize Mexico, but it's American Dollars, Lungs, Veins and Noses those drugs are entering. The U.S. is the largest proliferator of weapons. Much of their trouble is directly associated to the creation of a black market. The same black market you claim is created by toughening gun laws. Too me it would seem you'd agree.

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by sinton66
[B]

Look at what's happening with the gangs right here in the US. How long do you think it'll be until they begin to support the Mexican Cartels?
/B] THEY don't support the Cartels, lmao that's humorous. The Cartels support them, provide drugs, defend the market, and create the infrastructure and hubs that vein out into smaller cities and towns all the way to Idaho and through to Canada. The connection with the dangerous gangs here are already directly associated with the cartels. American money and addiction has created this monster down south. Same thing that happened with Pablo Escobar and the introduction of his cocaine into America in the 70s. That is why control of the trade is so lucrative, we are talking about becoming the most powerful black marketeer in the WORLD

[sinton66]

You misinterpreted what I was saying. So far, the gangs aren't "teaming up" with the cartels in terms of being on the border and using their weaponry to assist them bringing product and runners in, but I'm saying that isn't very far away. If the cartels start crossing the border with their violence and weaponry, how far away can gang support be? We need US Military troops on the border now.

[zebrablue2]

Originally posted by sinton66
You misinterpreted what I was saying. So far, the gangs aren't "teaming up" with the cartels in terms of being on the border and using their weaponry to assist them bringing product and runners in, but I'm saying that isn't very far away. If the cartels start crossing the border with their violence and weaponry, how far away can gang support be? We need US Military troops on the border now.


:iagree:

[rockdale80]

Originally posted by sinton66
You misinterpreted what I was saying. So far, the gangs aren't "teaming up" with the cartels in terms of being on the border and using their weaponry to assist them bringing product and runners in, but I'm saying that isn't very far away. If the cartels start crossing the border with their violence and weaponry, how far away can gang support be? We need US Military troops on the border now.

Agreed, but what does this have to do with gun control? I thought we were talking about making it harder for criminals to buy weapons. Also, when weapons are tracked at purchase it will aid in shutting down black market purchases. My point is what does it matter if you are a law abiding citizen buying a weapon and have to pass a background check? Should we just sell them over the counter to anyone? I have never needed a gun so bad that I couldnt wait 7 days for my check. I cant imagine what would be the reason for needing it immediately. Just a thought.:)

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by DDBooger
With that line of thinking, do you agree we should legalize drugs because people will get them anyways and fill the coffers of the drug cartels. We demonize Mexico, but it's American Dollars, Lungs, Veins and Noses those drugs are entering. The U.S. is the largest proliferator of weapons. Much of their trouble is directly associated to the creation of a black market. The same black market you claim is created by toughening gun laws. Too me it would seem you'd agree.
.
I would think that the line of thinking for simply enforcing existing gun laws would help, period(why do we need new laws???). Why does everyone avoid answering that when it is brought up?
:nerd:

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by SintonFan
.
I would think that the line of thinking for simply enforcing existing gun laws would help, period(why do we need new laws???). Why does everyone avoid answering that when it is brought up?
:nerd: perhaps because you quoted someone who didn't offer, suggest or promote that! LOL:thinking:
I've seen statistics, it's my job, I know eliminating guns won't work, but I think there is a pragmatic approach with weapons. finding the grounds for what is enforceable and what is not always turns political first before common sense or feasible. Some guns have no purpose in the hands of civilians, and if you look at the weapons used for crimes, they are hardly 50 cal sniper rifles lol most are simple yet deadly enough hand guns, we can't stop the proliferation of those weapons. We can certainly do a MUCH BETTER job of enforcing things in place.

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by sinton66
You misinterpreted what I was saying. So far, the gangs aren't "teaming up" with the cartels in terms of being on the border and using their weaponry to assist them bringing product and runners in, but I'm saying that isn't very far away. If the cartels start crossing the border with their violence and weaponry, how far away can gang support be? We need US Military troops on the border now. sorry man, that is just sensationalism and fear mongering. We don't need troops on the border:rolleyes:
Gangsters don't make money by operating out in the open or shooting it out with the police, feds or soldiers. In fact it is just those type of individuals who are quickly discarded by organized crime which are much more dangerous than average thugs (and most the violence has been cartel vs cartel and cartel vs federale). The spillover has also targeted those in that atmosphere. The product moves through varying arrays of transit, hell even submersibles in the ocean, truly ingenius! let one cartel assume sole ownership of the corridor and you'll see peace and quiet! Unfortunately in dealing with the black market, when you cut the head off the chicken, unlike a nation-state, you don't create paralysis, but mayhem, the same kind you have in Ciudad Juarez

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by DDBooger
perhaps because you quoted someone who didn't offer, suggest or promote that! LOL:thinking:
I've seen statistics, it's my job, I know eliminating guns won't work, but I think there is a pragmatic approach with weapons. finding the grounds for what is enforceable and what is not always turns political first before common sense or feasible. Some guns have no purpose in the hands of civilians, and if you look at the weapons used for crimes, they are hardly 50 cal sniper rifles lol most are simple yet deadly enough hand guns, we can't stop the proliferation of those weapons. We can certainly do a MUCH BETTER job of enforcing things in place.
.
It is the job of all citizens to look at everything, guns included, with common sense...
what job do you currently hold Boog?
Has your job burdened you with deciding what is enforceable/feasible and what isn't when it comes to our current gun control laws?
You try to come off as an authority... :thinking:
what do you know that most of us don't know.:nerd:

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by SintonFan
.
It is the job of all citizens to look at everything, guns included, with common sense...
what job do you currently hold Boog?
Has your job burdened you with deciding what is enforceable/feasible and what isn't when it comes to our current gun control laws?
You try to come off as an authority... :thinking:
what do you know that most of us don't know.:nerd: Statistics and social science, I thought that was simple enough to surmise? you sound threatened by that? Perhaps had you not come at me with why questions aren't answered when posed to people who promote something I didn't, you'd have seen past your quick rush to judgment there pard! Quit playiing the Heritage foundation and quit being so insecure with the 'you think you're better than us':eek: lmao! I hardly feel that way and it was certainly not my intention to come off as a false appeal to authority!:D As a matter of fact, had you looked past your "he thinks he knows more than me" attitude, you'd see my appeal to knowledge in the subject was probably in support of what you said! :thinking:
Oh and my job has exposed me to lots of criminal justice and criminology models and feasibility of programs. Most have shown that the possession of guns neither provides MORE security or LESS and the ability for the government to eliminate weapons or those that are already inundated in society too overwhelming a job. Just common sense at this point. Are you acquiesced or do you need a resume, Curriculum Vitae, and DNA sample? :thinking: hahaha so silly!:p

[DDBooger]

back to real discussion (hoping SintonFan can live with what I do) I don't like the necessity of guns, but the elimiination of them is not possible, the control of them is dicey and some are just not needed in a regular civilian's hands, in my opinion. Yeah, we know you may need protection from the government :rolleyes: but outside of having black helicopters and tanks rolling up on you, the most dangerous weapons and the one's used most are handguns. We won't eliminate them, we have to simply do a much better job of enforcing the laws in place. The whole waiting period, I think Rockdale is right about that. However, let someone die 6 days after ordering a handgun and watch the lobbyist get all over it! Even if they already have an arsenal! :)

[pirate4state]

mr. telephone man hahaha

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by ronwx5x
How about a website that allows everyone to pick his/her side and get facts to back up his/her opinion. You can find for/against almost any gun control topic here and that way EVERYONE can prove their point by statistics.

http://socialissues.wiseto.com/Topics/GunControl1/

Just goes to show statistics often can be used however you want to skew them. The truth of the matter is the US has the highest gun ownership and the highest murder rate by guns in the civilized world. Can legislation stop that statistic? I know it won't if there is no legislation controlling gun ownership. I don't know if more legislation will stop or slow the problem.

Just to play devil's advocate, if Americans finally get sick and tired of being on the upper end of violent crime rates, the backlash against guns will be far worse than it is today, so why not at least try to keep guns out of the hands of criminals even if it causes a little discomfort to those who would advocate they should be allowed to own whatever they want, including fully automatic weapons.

And don't start quoting the second amendment to me. That amendment is still being debated as to it's true meaning over 223 years later.




I don't resist gun control. I whole heartedly support gun control. We have gun control measures in place now. Are we safer? Are we less likely to be killed by a gun now? Has anything gotten better in the area since the implementation of these controls? The answers are NO, NO, and NO! Don't take my word for it. Study the facts. The real facts, not the slanted facts.
The Gun Ownership rates and Murder rates in this country are a result of the individual freedoms Americans are priviledged to have. Are you advocating that we give up as much of our freedoms as is required in order to bring America in line with the rest of the world in murder and crime statistics????? This country was founded in violence and earned much of it's world acclaim by violence. Guns are harmless machines that hurt noone until they get in the hands of the violent people. Why don't you advocate something to STOP THE PEOPLE who use the guns rather than passing more useless laws that can't be enforced?

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
IWhy don't you advocate something to STOP THE PEOPLE who use the guns rather than passing more useless laws that can't be enforced?

Huh? I thought that's what laws are designed to do, stop the use of whatever they are passed for. Anyway, I invite you to point where I advocated anything in my post. I simply posed an opinion that doing nothing will work no better than trying to do something. Since speeding laws don't stop speeding, should we do away with them also. Same with laws aginst rape?

The ostrich effect of hiding one's head definitely will not work.

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by rockdale80
We are talking apples and oranges. Why not attempt to keep the guns out of the hands of criminals? I am not talking about law abiding citizens. They should be able to purchase guns at their discretion and can.

Why is it propaganda? Because you dont agree with it?:thinking:


Give me an idea to keep guns out of the hands of crimminals and you have my vote. I will fight tooth and nail to get that law passed. All control measures to date and proposed for the future will serve no purpose other than making it more difficult for a law abiding citizen to exercise their right. Considering that statistics show that only about 7% of crimminals actually get their guns from a licensed shop it makes zero sense to impose more stupid laws on the licensed shops. Perhaps you are ok with new laws that negatively effect law abiding citizens just to stop 7% of the crimminals??????
I don't think that percentage is high enough to justifiy new laws. but thats just me.....

It's propaganda when it's slanted to emphasize a false impression that supports your side of the discussion. Your entire post was meant to emphasize policies passed by Clinton and their success. The truth shows that Clinton was the KING of over-emphasis and taking credit for things he had no part in. His claim to fame is the Gun Control measures that he championed during his tenure when actual facts show these measures had little or no significant effect on America.

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by DDBooger
With that line of thinking, do you agree we should legalize drugs because people will get them anyways and fill the coffers of the drug cartels. We demonize Mexico, but it's American Dollars, Lungs, Veins and Noses those drugs are entering. The U.S. is the largest proliferator of weapons. Much of their trouble is directly associated to the creation of a black market. The same black market you claim is created by toughening gun laws. Too me it would seem you'd agree.


Legalizing drugs might be the smartest thing America could do right now. But that is another discussion.

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by DDBooger
back to real discussion (hoping SintonFan can live with what I do) I don't like the necessity of guns, but the elimiination of them is not possible, the control of them is dicey and some are just not needed in a regular civilian's hands, in my opinion. Yeah, we know you may need protection from the government :rolleyes: but outside of having black helicopters and tanks rolling up on you, the most dangerous weapons and the one's used most are handguns. We won't eliminate them, we have to simply do a much better job of enforcing the laws in place. The whole waiting period, I think Rockdale is right about that. However, let someone die 6 days after ordering a handgun and watch the lobbyist get all over it! Even if they already have an arsenal! :)


I agree. I don't have a problem with a waiting period. Although the Supreme court already ruled in 1997 that requiring a background check was unconstitutional. But the whole concept of gun control is lunacy. Guns are harmless. It's the people using the guns that need addressed. A man can drive a 4000lb SUV through a shop window and kill more people than he can with a handgun yet I don't see people screaming to outlaw SUVs. Anyone who wants to can use rat poison to take out as many people as they can at a mall eatery but we aren't discussing ad nauseam the idea of rat poison control. The bottom line is that crimminals will do what they are going to do regardless of what laws we pass. The idea of gun control is so volatile because any control measures that could be implemented would have such an adverse effect on the legal or law abiding side of the argument. So in order to justify in favor you MUST be able to show it will actually accomplish something. History shows it won't....

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by ronwx5x
Huh? I thought that's what laws are designed to do, stop the use of whatever they are passed for. Anyway, I invite you to point where I advocated anything in my post. I simply posed an opinion that doing nothing will work no better than trying to do something. Since speeding laws don't stop speeding, should we do away with them also. Same with laws aginst rape?

The ostrich effect of hiding one's head definitely will not work.


WHAT???? How is either one of these the same thing? But let's assume they are the same.

Since you can't have "Rape" without "Sex" we should make all people who wish to engage in sex register with the Government. Perhaps we should impliment a 5 day waiting period to prevent the "Rapes of passion". We could even force everyone to take a class on sex and how to avoid the traps of "Rape". We might even consider outlawing certain types of SEX that might be a little too rough and lead to rape. With everyone registered, licensed and trained we would have no more rape, right?..... Ridiculous? yes it is. But it's almost identical to the gun control argument. It your own words, "doing nothing will work no better than trying to do something."
And when it comes to our rights we can't afford to have a "do something even if it's wrong mentality". At least that's my opinion.

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
WHAT???? How is either one of these the same thing? But let's assume they are the same.

Since you can't have "Rape" without "Sex" we should make all people who wish to engage in sex register with the Government. Perhaps we should impliment a 5 day waiting period to prevent the "Rapes of passion". We could even force everyone to take a class on sex and how to avoid the traps of "Rape". We might even consider outlawing certain types of SEX that might be a little too rough and lead to rape. With everyone registered, licensed and trained we would have no more rape, right?..... Ridiculous? yes it is. But it's almost identical to the gun control argument. It your own words, "doing nothing will work no better than trying to do something."
And when it comes to our rights we can't afford to have a "do something even if it's wrong mentality". At least that's my opinion.

Farmer, I miss your point completely. Rape is illegal, sex is not. Rape is for power over a helpless person, sex is consual between two adults. There certainly are "classes" on sex, not on rape.

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by ronwx5x
Farmer, I miss your point completely. Rape is illegal, sex is not. Rape is for power over a helpless person, sex is consual between two adults. There certainly are "classes" on sex, not on rape.


Killing is illegal-Guns are not!
Armed Robbery is illegal-Guns are not!
Any gun CRIME is illegal-Guns are not!

Speeding is illegal-Driving is not.
Poisoning everyone at the mall is illegal-Rat poison is not!

Rape is illegal-Sex is not

Rape is the act of using a TOOL to gain power over another person. That TOOL is sex.

If we use the Gun Control logic we must assume that if we target the TOOL we will prevent the crime.

My post was to attempt to show how lame the argument for gun control is. It's the people who make guns dangerous that have to be addressed. Not the TOOLS themselves. Guns are basically the only TOOL that people think should be made illegal. But the very definition of TOOL means that it serves other purposes as well. Good purposes. Valid purposes. Reasonable purposes. But since it can be misused we should do away with it?

[Farmersfan]

This thread was not all about me. Someone else needs to step up here. I didn't mean to take over completely. I just started responding to posts from several people. Sorry everyone!

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
This thread was not all about me. Someone else needs to step up here. I didn't mean to take over completely. I just started responding to posts from several people. Sorry everyone! You're so narcissistic !:rolleyes:
:p :D

[pirate4state]

Total Posts: 69
User........Posts
Farmersfan 18
sinton66 12
DDBooger 12
rockdale80 5
SintonFan 4
ronwx5x 3
Trashman 3
zebrablue2 3
Phil C 2
waterboy 2
pirate4state 2
sinfan75 1
icu812 1
Txbroadcaster 1

[waterboy]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
This thread was not all about me. Someone else needs to step up here. I didn't mean to take over completely. I just started responding to posts from several people. Sorry everyone!
:clap: Hey, Bud! You're doing just fine! Keep up the good work! So far you've pretty much said what I was thinking........:thinking: but couldn't put into words.........at least not as eloquently.:)

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by DDBooger
Statistics and social science, I thought that was simple enough to surmise? you sound threatened by that? Perhaps had you not come at me with why questions aren't answered when posed to people who promote something I didn't, you'd have seen past your quick rush to judgment there pard! Quit playiing the Heritage foundation and quit being so insecure with the 'you think you're better than us':eek: lmao! I hardly feel that way and it was certainly not my intention to come off as a false appeal to authority!:D As a matter of fact, had you looked past your "he thinks he knows more than me" attitude, you'd see my appeal to knowledge in the subject was probably in support of what you said! :thinking:
Oh and my job has exposed me to lots of criminal justice and criminology models and feasibility of programs. Most have shown that the possession of guns neither provides MORE security or LESS and the ability for the government to eliminate weapons or those that are already inundated in society too overwhelming a job. Just common sense at this point. Are you acquiesced or do you need a resume, Curriculum Vitae, and DNA sample? :thinking: hahaha so silly!:p
.
Boog, you should know me better than that...:p
while my post did have a little more of an edge than I intended(sorry about that) I was responding to you posting, "I've seen statistics, it's my job". I thought maybe you must be a law officer or a professor or something(I'm sure you explained your job before, I don't recall it now). Couple that with posting "Some guns have no purpose in the hands of civilians" it seems you must have studied this quite a bit and just might be involved with law enforcement. I don't have a problem with that... but was curious
I stand by what I posted because it is all of our jobs to use common sense in our lives(and observances). Yes, the majority of this board possesses this quality so when I post that it comes off as preaching to the choir.
I disagree with your list of studies(the majority) stating possession of guns doesn't provide more or less security. You know that some of those who provide these studies will skew the results for their own ends. I have seen studies before that had quite different results and it became obvious that many of these aren't very "scientific" and are used to promote a particular agenda.
And since your response comes off as a little harsh please send me your resume... asking for your DNA IS a little much. :p :D
(btw the :D smiley negated the previous sentence)

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by SintonFan
.
Boog, you should know me better than that...:p
while my post did have a little more of an edge than I intended(sorry about that) I was responding to you posting, "I've seen statistics, it's my job". I thought maybe you must be a law officer or a professor or something(I'm sure you explained your job before, I don't recall it now). Couple that with posting "Some guns have no purpose in the hands of civilians" it seems you must have studied this quite a bit and just might be involved with law enforcement. I don't have a problem with that... but was curious
I stand by what I posted because it is all of our jobs to use common sense in our lives(and observances). Yes, the majority of this board possesses this quality so when I post that it comes off as preaching to the choir.
I disagree with your list of studies(the majority) stating possession of guns doesn't provide more or less security. You know that some of those who provide these studies will skew the results for their own ends. I have seen studies before that had quite different results and it became obvious that many of these aren't very "scientific" and are used to promote a particular agenda.
And since your response comes off as a little harsh please send me your resume... asking for your DNA IS a little much. :p :D
(btw the :D smiley negated the previous sentence)
I know pard! and the studies referenced regarding more safe come from areas of academia much friendlier to the pro gun agenda and lobby (criminal justice and criminology). That being said, they quantify their findings on the basis of of not only safe from criminals but people from themselves and government paternalism have no place to tell people what they can own as opposed to just mandating people learn HOW to use a gun before being allowed to own one. That being said, how many people take driving and defensive driving courses seriously:rolleyes:
lots of skewing and biases do occur, but the luxury of having peer review is they are quickly highlighted if not stated by the author themselves. So many do just that. I stated some have no place in peoples possession, but that was solely imo not something generalizable to a study or anything.

I know you're a passionate man about your politics etc SF, as am I, we are often interpreted as being (edgy) but I think it is in response to our ability to critically think an issue rather than regurgitate Fox, MSNBC, Rush, Bill'O, and Olberman. Me and Farmersfan likely differ in our politics, but I respect his critical thinking ability as I do yours. Next time don't drive to the basket so hard and I won't foul ya! ;) :p

[waterboy]

Did you know that 51.6% of all statistics are made up on the spot?:thinking: Just thought I'd throw that out there.:D

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by DDBooger
I know pard! and the studies referenced regarding more safe come from areas of academia much friendlier to the pro gun agenda and lobby (criminal justice and criminology). That being said, they quantify their findings on the basis of of not only safe from criminals but people from themselves and government paternalism have no place to tell people what they can own as opposed to just mandating people learn HOW to use a gun before being allowed to own one. That being said, how many people take driving and defensive driving courses seriously:rolleyes:
lots of skewing and biases do occur, but the luxury of having peer review is they are quickly highlighted if not stated by the author themselves. So many do just that. I stated some have no place in peoples possession, but that was solely imo not something generalizable to a study or anything.

I know you're a passionate man about your politics etc SF, as am I, we are often interpreted as being (edgy) but I think it is in response to our ability to critically think an issue rather than regurgitate Fox, MSNBC, Rush, Bill'O, and Olberman. Me and Farmersfan likely differ in our politics, but I respect his critical thinking ability as I do yours. Next time don't drive to the basket so hard and I won't foul ya! ;) :p
.
As long as I make the free throw...:p
.
I wasn't aware that much of academia was ever friendly to gun rights. They tend to be overwhelmingly dominated by the left. But yes, some can be objective I'm sure.
.
I do think we agree more on this issue than disagree. I however, do tend to believe more in the line of Dennis Prager and the pursuit of truth first over opinions(although that doesn't mean I don't have one). It is difficult these days with much erroneous data out there and can quickly eat up more time finding said truth than I would like it to.
Dangit, I need to reread this thread because I think the original topic is very important indeed.:nerd:

[pirate4state]

someone find me charlie brown's teachers voice in a wave file

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by waterboy
:clap: Hey, Bud! You're doing just fine! Keep up the good work! So far you've pretty much said what I was thinking........:thinking: but couldn't put into words.........at least not as eloquently.:)


Now that really scares me!!!!!:D :D

[waterboy]

Originally posted by pirate4state
someone find me charlie brown's teachers voice in a wave file
Sorry, can't find it in a wave file, but I did find somebody who does a good impression......:D Check it out....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cvotwO0Kwo&feature=related

[ronwx5x]

Amazing that 4 days ago all this same opinionizing was on the Bill of Rights thread and just moved over here by appearently common consent. Must be the only thing everyone agreed on!

Interesting anyway.:clap:

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by pirate4state
someone find me charlie brown's teachers voice in a wave file


Or better yet: a clip of Lucy as she pulls the ball away from Charlie Brown each time he tries to kick it.



(see the ball would represent our rights, Lucy the Government and we would all be Charlie Brown.) :confused:

[ronwx5x]

Oops, just saw the other thread was closed. Too much off base?

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by ronwx5x
Amazing that 4 days ago all this same opinionizing was on the Bill of Rights thread and just moved over here by appearently common consent. Must be the only thing everyone agreed on!

Interesting anyway.:clap:


Naw! We just followed you.

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
Naw! We just followed you.

By the way, I see oil prices are back up to over $53/bbl. That jacked-up truck is looking better all the time huh? :D

Do you commute into the DFW area every day?

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by ronwx5x
By the way, I see oil prices are back up to over $53/bbl. That jacked-up truck is looking better all the time huh? :D

Do you commute into the DFW area every day?


I drive a Government vehicle...........:devil:

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
I drive a Government vehicle...........:devil:

Or at least it soon will be?:cool:

[waterboy]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
Now that really scares me!!!!!:D :D
:D :D :D

That's exactly what I thought! I almost didn't post that!:doh:

[pirate4state]

Originally posted by ronwx5x
Amazing that 4 days ago all this same opinionizing was on the Bill of Rights thread and just moved over here by appearently common consent. Must be the only thing everyone agreed on!

Interesting anyway.:clap:

Its headed that way. You four to six posters need your own forum!

[SWMustang]

Originally posted by ronwx5x
Oops, just saw the other thread was closed. Too much off base?

shocking....

[waterboy]

Originally posted by pirate4state
Its headed that way. You four to six posters need your own forum!
Hey! I'm not getting into a deep discussion about this topic. I spoke my peace.......I just have to interject some humor here and there to keep these people from getting too serious. I say we just agree to disagree.........but let the discussion go on, too.:thumbsup:

:doh: Oh, wait a minute.............you wasn't talking to me......was you?:doh:

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by pirate4state
Its headed that way. You four to six posters need your own forum!

Ah,you're just jealous and feel excluded!:)

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by waterboy
Hey! I'm not getting into a deep discussion about this topic. I spoke my peace.......I just have to interject some humor here and there to keep these people from getting too serious. I say we just agree to disagree.........but let the discussion go on, too.:thumbsup:

:doh: Oh, wait a minute.............you wasn't talking to me......was you?:doh:

IMHO, yes.:inlove:

[pirate4state]

Originally posted by waterboy
Hey! I'm not getting into a deep discussion about this topic. I spoke my peace.......I just have to interject some humor here and there to keep these people from getting too serious. I say we just agree to disagree.........but let the discussion go on, too.:thumbsup:

:doh: Oh, wait a minute.............you wasn't talking to me......was you?:doh:

No, I wasn't.

[pirate4state]

Originally posted by ronwx5x
Ah,you're just jealous and feel excluded!:) Not in the least, I just like to annoy yall. I'm sure you've figured that out by now!

:devil:

[sinton66]

Originally posted by DDBooger
sorry man, that is just sensationalism and fear mongering. We don't need troops on the border:rolleyes:
Gangsters don't make money by operating out in the open or shooting it out with the police, feds or soldiers. In fact it is just those type of individuals who are quickly discarded by organized crime which are much more dangerous than average thugs (and most the violence has been cartel vs cartel and cartel vs federale). The spillover has also targeted those in that atmosphere. The product moves through varying arrays of transit, hell even submersibles in the ocean, truly ingenius! let one cartel assume sole ownership of the corridor and you'll see peace and quiet! Unfortunately in dealing with the black market, when you cut the head off the chicken, unlike a nation-state, you don't create paralysis, but mayhem, the same kind you have in Ciudad Juarez

You're naive if you think one in control will create peace. Even IF it did, it would be temporary at best. In that line of work, there is ALWAYS a challenger to the throne. On the Mexican side they ARE openly gunning down police and Mexican Military as well as innocent non-combatants. Don't you read the accounts in the newspapers? They are kidnapping ordinary citizens and forcing them to do things against their will. They're kidnapping kinfolk of the authorities in charge and demanding ransom and concessions. They AREN'T using handguns, they have automatic weaponry that matches and in some cases exceeds the Mexican Military. There have been in excess of 5000 killed in the last year. THEN, you gotta think about the Central and South American Cartels.

[sinton66]

Originally posted by rockdale80
Agreed, but what does this have to do with gun control? I thought we were talking about making it harder for criminals to buy weapons. Also, when weapons are tracked at purchase it will aid in shutting down black market purchases. My point is what does it matter if you are a law abiding citizen buying a weapon and have to pass a background check? Should we just sell them over the counter to anyone? I have never needed a gun so bad that I couldnt wait 7 days for my check. I cant imagine what would be the reason for needing it immediately. Just a thought.:)

I don't care what kind of law you pass to try to keep weapons from criminals, it won't work. They will still get them by hook or crook. Look at the laws on the books now, have they really helped? Laws passed in the US wouldn't even apply to foreign nationals like the Mexican and Central American drug cartels.

How this pertains to citizens' gun ownership should be obvious. How does an ordinary citizen defend his home with a handgun or shotgun against four or five people armed with automatic weapons? The criminals will always have better firepower because the law abiding citizens can't legally purchase or even possess one like it. The drug cartels already have weaponry to match any modern military in the world. Money is no object to these people. They'll buy them regardless of cost if they can or steal them if they can't. More rigid controls will only worsen this situation.

I cant imagine what would be the reason for needing it immediately. Just a thought.:)

You might feel differently about his if you were sitting on your couch tonight watching television and a criminal kicked in your front door pointing a weapon (gun or knife) at you and demanding your money, credit cards, and car keys. Might have come in handy to have been able to buy one this morning. I understand this is a bit of a stretch, but it happens in Houston and other major American cities quite often. I assure you, they would be making a hell of a mistake by kicking in MY door.

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by sinton66
You're naive if you think one in control will create peace. Even IF it did, it would be temporary at best. In that line of work, there is ALWAYS a challenger to the throne. On the Mexican side they ARE openly gunning down police and Mexican Military as well as innocent non-combatants. Don't you read the accounts in the newspapers? They are kidnapping ordinary citizens and forcing them to do things against their will. They're kidnapping kinfolk of the authorities in charge and demanding ransom and concessions. They AREN'T using handguns, they have automatic weaponry that matches and in some cases exceeds the Mexican Military. There have been in excess of 5000 killed in the last year. THEN, you gotta think about the Central and South American Cartels. I was speaking in terms of what is occurring HERE. what is occurring there is structurally different obviously and if you read their media, not the sensationalism here, it'll show that the deaths are happening almost entirely between combatants and the military/federale. And yes, this isn't a unknown, when ONE heads everything, you have a much more quiet setting, not free of violence but much more controlled (by themselves). Families are involved, but that is obviously not indirect or collateral but directly connected through kinship. Do people die as a result of the violence by nature of the situation, yes. But at this very moment there has a been a slight slowdown or as some people who purvey it say "retooling" When your soldados are spent. These cartels despite their barbarism are hardly idiots with weapons, these people are highly innovative, smart, business minded and prefer peace because that translates to wealth. As we knock off the heads, you'll see vacuums created as cartels small and large fight to fill the void. That is why sometimes one big Kingpin will have less violence until squeezed (Pablo Escobar) . His rampage of Columbia really took off once the US began to fund the Columbian Army and paramilitary forces Los Pepes (speculated to be police officers trained by DEA, Spec Ops &/or CIA).

[sinton66]

So your answer is that we do nothing? We sit back and watch as they gain control of the traffic routes into the US? What happens when they meet resistance to their efforts on this side? Will they be willing to sacrifice some as the "price of doing business" or will they be bolstered by their victory on the other side and launch a similar effort on this side?

The FBI, ATF, DEA, Border Patrol, etc. aren't trained in guerilla warfare tactics which is exactly what they would use. I'm just saying there is only one organization in the US with the training, manpower, and FIREPOWER to keep them at bay, that is the US Military. It's basic warfare, outnumber, outmanuver, and outgun.

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by sinton66
So your answer is that we do nothing? We sit back and watch as they gain control of the traffic routes into the US? They have control of the traffic routes already and no, hope we come to our senses as in the 30s with prohibition.


Originally posted by sinton66
What happens when they meet resistance to their efforts on this side? Will they be willing to sacrifice some as the "price of doing business" or will they be bolstered by their victory on the other side and launch a similar effort on this side? They are met with resistance here (i.e. MS13) They won't come here because they won't have to, the network is in place.


Originally posted by sinton66
The FBI, ATF, DEA, Border Patrol, etc. aren't trained in guerilla warfare tactics which is exactly what they would use. I'm just saying there is only one organization in the US with the training, manpower, and FIREPOWER to keep them at bay, that is the US Military. It's basic warfare, outnumber, outmanuver, and outgun. guerilla warfare? lmao in U.S. more urban warfare which is not one in the same. LMAO they aren't going to come over here in force as you portray it, this isn't Invasion USA with Chuck Norris. Again, the system is already in place. They don't have anything to move over here for or invade blah blah. The response here is much less hostile in comparison to there, and mostly because of the transparency of our legal system in comparison to theirs. Military response is silly imo. When we reach a tenth of that form of violence perhaps, but not any where near that. Some mayors in border cities have not stated elevated spikes in drug related violence.

[sinton66]

Originally posted by DDBooger
They have control of the traffic routes already and no, hope we come to our senses as in the 30s with prohibition.

Really? Wasn't it you who said they are fighting each other for control of the major traffic lanes? The US military couldn't possibly interrupt these?


They are met with resistance here (i.e. MS13) They won't come here because they won't have to, the network is in place.
And this situation isn't subject to change? You're giving up without a fight?


guerilla warfare? lmao in U.S. more urban warfare which is not one in the same. LMAO they aren't going to come over here in force as you portray it, this isn't Invasion USA with Chuck Norris.
Urban warfare? You think the major traffic routes are in the middle of cities?


The response here is much less hostile in comparison to there, and mostly because of the transparency of our legal system in comparison to theirs.
I already know what CAUSED the problem, how do we solve it?


Military response is silly imo. When we reach a tenth of that form of violence perhaps, but not any where near that. Some mayors in border cities have not stated elevated spikes in drug related violence.

"A stitch in time saves nine". Why NOT stop it before it reaches that point and hundreds or thousands of American citizens are murdered?

I honestly think you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. If you can't "see" the logic behind it, I don't know what to tell you, but living where you live, it'll affect you before it does the rest of the state.

[SintonFan]

Boog, I have friends in El Paso and they say it is pretty bad there, so I guess that is one of those cities not included in your "some".:eek::p

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by sinton66
Really? Wasn't it you who said they are fighting each other for control of the major traffic lanes? The US military couldn't possibly interrupt these?
IN MEXICO!! CONROL OF THE EXPORT


Originally posted by sinton66
And this situation isn't subject to change? You're giving up without a fight? [/B] NO saying there doesn't have to be a fight!



Originally posted by sinton66 Urban warfare? You think the major traffic routes are in the middle of cities?[/B] Largest Hubs are major cities, most buyers are where? Are you sure you know anything about this?


Originally posted by sinton66
I already know what CAUSED the problem, how do we solve it? [/B] start decriminalizing it again PROHIBITION model




Originally posted by sinton66 "A stitch in time saves nine". Why NOT stop it before it reaches that point and hundreds or thousands of American citizens are murdered?
[/B] Cliches don't solve problems, just make a response nice and cutesie! lol Your presuming it will reach the level in Mexico, that is highly unlikely, different form of conflict. Their the fight is for the ownership of production, here distribution




Originally posted by sinton66 I honestly think you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. If you can't "see" the logic behind it, I don't know what to tell you, but living where you live, it'll affect you before it does the rest of the state. [/B] I think you are simply regurgitating popular media or something you heard somewhere, you make absurd claims and mix and match situational differences in the "war on drugs" I think you just don't like someone arguing with you!

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by SintonFan
Boog, I have friends in El Paso and they say it is pretty bad there, so I guess that is one of those cities not included in your "some".:eek::p my family lives in Laredo, just as bad across there, not making huge splashes in Laredo and the drug violence that is occruring is overwhelmingly those involved in it.

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by sinton66
I don't care what kind of law you pass to try to keep weapons from criminals, it won't work. They will still get them by hook or crook. Look at the laws on the books now, have they really helped? Laws passed in the US wouldn't even apply to foreign nationals like the Mexican and Central American drug cartels.

How this pertains to citizens' gun ownership should be obvious. How does an ordinary citizen defend his home with a handgun or shotgun against four or five people armed with automatic weapons? The criminals will always have better firepower because the law abiding citizens can't legally purchase or even possess one like it. The drug cartels already have weaponry to match any modern military in the world. Money is no object to these people. They'll buy them regardless of cost if they can or steal them if they can't. More rigid controls will only worsen this situation.


You might feel differently about his if you were sitting on your couch tonight watching television and a criminal kicked in your front door pointing a weapon (gun or knife) at you and demanding your money, credit cards, and car keys. Might have come in handy to have been able to buy one this morning. I understand this is a bit of a stretch, but it happens in Houston and other major American cities quite often. I assure you, they would be making a hell of a mistake by kicking in MY door.

No, it doesn't happen quite often, even in Houston and other large cities. Does it ever happen or has it happened? Probably, but in very isolated cases and usually it's a turf war over drugs. If I let loose with an automatic weapon I might get one or two, and probably a couple of neighbors with them. That it happens quite often is pure supposition and not provable. I for one don't believe I'm going to fight someone who has the "draw" on me with heavy weapons by owning an automatic weapon. In fact, I don't expect it to happen.

And fend off four or five bandits by owning an automatic weapon? That's not even conceivable. I don't favor total gun control, but your argument is not factual. Now let me have it with both barrels!

[DDBooger]

Now here is something you guys may agree with me, as we are doing in Pakistan, if we can get them to look past their distrust of us and have a more proactive look at utilizing our military capability THERE not HERE. We can certainly reach out and touch them much more adequately as we did in Columbia. I think it may eventually lead down that route. They will have no choice in order to avoid a possible failed state. In that equation, U.S. intervention as minor as possible could help them gain confidence in fighting these guys who in some occasions outgun them. I'm sorry, if we start having special ops teams painting targets and having Drones, A10s etc we can make it REAL scary and uncomfortable for them. The logistics would be EXTREMELY complex however.

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by DDBooger
my family lives in Laredo, just as bad across there, not making huge splashes in Laredo and the drug violence that is occruring is overwhelmingly those involved in it.
.
Just don't say it doesn't affect those who live there and in El Paso. It does...
BTW, Laredo is a much nicer town than in the 80's. Even so, they are affected by drug violence.
I disagree with you about legalizing drugs(if that is what you are advocating). That's is in essence "throwing in the towel" knowing all the horrible ramifications that illegal drugs bring(all the consequences and ill-effects these drugs have). Sometimes it IS good to stand up for what is right, and the burden is heavy indeed. That's no reason to throw in the towel...

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by SintonFan
.
Just don't say it doesn't affect those who live there and in El Paso. It does...
BTW, Laredo is a much nicer town than in the 80's. Even so, they are affected by drug violence.
I disagree with you about legalizing drugs(if that is what you are advocating). That's is in essence "throwing in the towel" knowing all the horrible ramifications that illegal drugs bring(all the consequences and ill-effects these drugs have). Sometimes it IS good to stand up for what is right, and the burden is heavy indeed. That's no reason to throw in the towel... sorry man, it's your presupposition that drugs already don't have a hold on us, nations who have decriminalized don't have anything to substantiate your claim of getting worse. As a matter of fact it makes it a lot easier to convict and pursue these individuals. Same way we got the REAL scarface, not with alcohol distribution but tax evasion lol. RICO has helped here alot too, guilty by association has helped put alot behind bars. That being said, it's a inexhuastible market, like guns, if someone wants it, someone will provide it. It's a larger fairy tale to believe we will someday be completely drug free In the history of man as far back as the cavemen, human beings have sought mind altering substances.

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by SintonFan
.
Just don't say it doesn't affect those who live there and in El Paso. It does...
BTW, Laredo is a much nicer town than in the 80's. Even so, they are affected by drug violence.
I disagree with you about legalizing drugs(if that is what you are advocating). That's is in essence "throwing in the towel" knowing all the horrible ramifications that illegal drugs bring(all the consequences and ill-effects these drugs have). Sometimes it IS good to stand up for what is right, and the burden is heavy indeed. That's no reason to throw in the towel...

Now there's something I can agree with! :iagree:

[DDBooger]

To close this out on my part...don't use drugs, be high on life, if you drink don't drive, don't smoke, or don't start. Be happy! oh and wear condoms! :D

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by SintonFan
.
Just don't say it doesn't affect those who live there and in El Paso. It does...
BTW, Laredo is a much nicer town than in the 80's. Even so, they are affected by drug violence.
I disagree with you about legalizing drugs(if that is what you are advocating). That's is in essence "throwing in the towel" knowing all the horrible ramifications that illegal drugs bring(all the consequences and ill-effects these drugs have). Sometimes it IS good to stand up for what is right, and the burden is heavy indeed. That's no reason to throw in the towel...


The biggest negative impact on this country from illegal drugs comes from the illegal activities associated with it. Legalize it and get control of it. Quality control would go very far in saving a lot of lives of young people. I don't think it would be "throwing in the towel". It would just be taking another perspective of the problem. We cannot beat this problem while it encourages the crimminal element. Remove the crimminal element from it and we can get a grip on it. (somewhat). And the billions brought in to the government in tax revenues could be used for treatment centers and education.

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by DDBooger
To close this out on my part...don't use drugs, be high on life, if you drink don't drive, don't smoke, or don't start. Be happy! oh and wear condoms! :D


Dang! I got one out of five right!!!!:D :D

[sinton66]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
The biggest negative impact on this country from illegal drugs comes from the illegal activities associated with it. Legalize it and get control of it. Quality control would go very far in saving a lot of lives of young people. I don't think it would be "throwing in the towel". It would just be taking another perspective of the problem. We cannot beat this problem while it encourages the crimminal element. Remove the crimminal element from it and we can get a grip on it. (somewhat). And the billions brought in to the government in tax revenues could be used for treatment centers and education.

Yes, it is "throwing in the towel". Tax revenues used for treatment centers? Good luck with that once our elected "representatives" get their mitts on that money.

Nobody's even dreaming that we'll one day be absolutely free of drugs. But, that doesn't mean we have to give up. We can beat this problem by beating the criminals. If this great nation was SERIOUS about stopping it, it could do so. All it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing. (There's another "cutsie for you, Booger.)

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by sinton66
Yes, it is "throwing in the towel". Tax revenues used for treatment centers? Good luck with that once our elected "representatives" get their mitts on that money.

Nobody's even dreaming that we'll one day be absolutely free of drugs. But, that doesn't mean we have to give up. We can beat this problem by beating the criminals. If this great nation was SERIOUS about stopping it, it could do so. All it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing. (There's another "cutsie for you, Booger.)

I wil never understand why the Government gets to decide what drug is or is not legal. You cannot smoke weed it is bad, but hey want to dip or smoke in the privacy of your own home, then go ahead...why? Because tobacco was one of the staple crops that built this country

Do not think for one second if the tables were reversed and Weed had been the staple product it would be illegal now.

We have filled our jail and judical system with people whose only crime is using drugs, I am not talking about people who commit a crime while on drugs, but just the simple drug user. So while he sits behind the bars of the jail, the guard watching him can go take a smoke break legally using something (nicotine) that is considered the most addictive substance in the world.

The "war" on drugs will never be won, no matter how much money, weaponry, troops or laws we use agianst it, people will have a want for it, and others will provide that service

In fact the harder it will be for the user to get the drug, the higher the cost, the more dangerous the battles will become.

Legalize it, tax it, regulate it and THEN the "war" on drugs will have a slight chance of working.

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
I wil never understand why the Government gets to decide what drug is or is not legal. You cannot smoke weed it is bad, but hey want to dip or smoke in the privacy of your own home, then go ahead...why? Because tobacco was one of the staple crops that built this country

Do not think for one second if the tables were reversed and Weed had been the staple product it would be illegal now.

We have filled our jail and judical system with people whose only crime is using drugs, I am not talking about people who commit a crime while on drugs, but just the simple drug user. So while he sits behind the bars of the jail, the guard watching him can go take a smoke break legally using something (nicotine) that is considered the most addictive substance in the world.

The "war" on drugs will never be won, no matter how much money, weaponry, troops or laws we use agianst it, people will have a want for it, and others will provide that service

In fact the harder it will be for the user to get the drug, the higher the cost, the more dangerous the battles will become.

Legalize it, tax it, regulate it and THEN the "war" on drugs will have a slight chance of working.


Excellent thinking! This country spends billions on a battle they will never win. I say lets bring in billions from the business instead of spending billions. The way I see it we could have OUR farmers growing it instead of them growing it in secret in the mountains somewhere. We could regulate the quality of it which would in turn make it much, much safer. The production and manufactoring of Hemp would open the door for many, many different uses. It is amazing what this plant can be used for. Try Googling it.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemp

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by sinton66
Yes, it is "throwing in the towel". Tax revenues used for treatment centers? Good luck with that once our elected "representatives" get their mitts on that money.

Nobody's even dreaming that we'll one day be absolutely free of drugs. But, that doesn't mean we have to give up. We can beat this problem by beating the criminals. If this great nation was SERIOUS about stopping it, it could do so. All it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing. (There's another "cutsie for you, Booger.)


Hey Sinton66, wouldn't this be basically the same argument that you were making about gun control? (except on the other side). The crimminals will always get guns or drugs so it makes no sense in making them illegal.

"Outlaw drugs and only outlaws will have Drugs"!!!!!;)

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by sinton66
Yes, it is "throwing in the towel". Tax revenues used for treatment centers? Good luck with that once our elected "representatives" get their mitts on that money.

Nobody's even dreaming that we'll one day be absolutely free of drugs. But, that doesn't mean we have to give up. We can beat this problem by beating the criminals. If this great nation was SERIOUS about stopping it, it could do so. All it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing. (There's another "cutsie for you, Booger.)

Sinton, you are the same poster who says we can't beat the criminals who have illegal weapons. Which is it? We can beat drug criminals but not criminals with guns?

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by ronwx5x
Sinton, you are the same poster who says we can't beat the criminals who have illegal weapons. Which is it? We can beat drug criminals but not criminals with guns?


And ronwx5x fires one across the bow......

Can the dread pirate Sinton66 recover?:eek: :eek:

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by ronwx5x
Sinton, you are the same poster who says we can't beat the criminals who have illegal weapons. Which is it? We can beat drug criminals but not criminals with guns?


I think THAT is the big problem. We can't beat them. I think we should start with a light caneing and then gradually move up to the feared and dreaded cat o' nine tails. We could start a whole new career path for some of our young'uns.

"Billy, what would you want to be when you grow up"?
"I want to be a Government Thrasher." "I looks like sooooo much fun beating those J-Walkers down at the courthouse every evening before supper".

:thinking: :thinking: :thinking:

[SintonFan]

It's fascinating how these opinions differ when different subjects are raised.
I'll go to bat for 66 on this one as I see his debate is more consistent than what has been brought up...
It boils down to this in his(mine too) arguments, enforce the existing laws dangit! I see where some of you are for guns rights and current laws but differ when it comes down to drug possession and dealership. Having that belief is less consistent with current laws than what I believe sinton66 is advocating.
I can't speak for 66 but I think that might be what he could possibly be posting about (please correct me if I am wrong 66).

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by SintonFan
It's fascinating how these opinions differ when different subjects are raised.
I'll go to bat for 66 on this one as I see his debate is more consistent than what has been brought up...
It boils down to this in his(mine too) arguments, enforce the existing laws dangit! I see where some of you are for guns rights and current laws but differ when it comes down to drug possession and dealership. Having that belief is less consistent with current laws than what I believe sinton66 is advocating.
I can't speak for 66 but I think that might be what he could possibly be posting about (please correct me if I am wrong 66). :kiss: :kiss: :kiss: :kiss:

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by DDBooger
sorry man, it's your presupposition that drugs already don't have a hold on us, nations who have decriminalized don't have anything to substantiate your claim of getting worse. As a matter of fact it makes it a lot easier to convict and pursue these individuals. Same way we got the REAL scarface, not with alcohol distribution but tax evasion lol. RICO has helped here alot too, guilty by association has helped put alot behind bars. That being said, it's a inexhuastible market, like guns, if someone wants it, someone will provide it. It's a larger fairy tale to believe we will someday be completely drug free In the history of man as far back as the cavemen, human beings have sought mind altering substances.
.
I'll counter by knocking your belief of my supposed presupposition and state my belief in your presupposition since your a "stats guy".
While yes, many people do use illegal drugs, your statement "that drugs already don't have a hold on us" is basically mental flatulence. The vast majority of people don't use or engage in illegal drugs. The vast majority of folks I know don't use drugs or don't want to(but that is secondary and a very narrow section of the populace).
What a big leap to make that statement and in fact looks to have had a fair amount of presupposition on your part.
Understand this, I'm not saying it isn't a problem, but I'm sure the stats will back me up versus your statement.

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by ronwx5x
:kiss: :kiss: :kiss: :kiss:
.
Having fun yet ronwx5x?
BTW, 66 and I have had conversations like this before so no I'm not kissing his posterior.:nerd:

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by SintonFan
.
Having fun yet ronwx5x?
BTW, 66 and I have had conversations like this before so no I'm not kissing his posterior.:nerd:

Just joshing, but yes I'm having fun.

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by SintonFan
.
I'll counter by knocking your belief of my supposed presupposition and state my belief in your presupposition since your a "stats guy".
While yes, many people do use illegal drugs, your statement "that drugs already don't have a hold on us" is basically mental flatulence. The vast majority of people don't use or engage in illegal drugs. The vast majority of folks I know don't use drugs or don't want to(but that is secondary and a very narrow section of the populace).
What a big leap to make that statement and in fact looks to have had a fair amount of presupposition on your part.
Understand this, I'm not saying it isn't a problem, but I'm sure the stats will back me up versus your statement.
correct, however you are looking at things in a way that water down the findings when not controlling for race, SES, age, etc. The levels of usage drastically goes up when you examine a certain population. Within a college population, aside from Marijuana the next drug in many areas isn't even illegal, but a controlled substance, ADHD drugs. Fact of the matter is YES, this country is immersed in drugs illegal or legal, which was my meaning, hence my drastic reach to the origins of man!:D We could learn much from Eastern philosophies that don't treat but LEAD healthier lives. In regards to drugs it is presupposition to say we are not in its grip, you have a nation south of us tearing itself apart to provide us billions in product. According to NIBRS and NCVS authorities typically only capture 1% of all crimes committed. Drug use when examined through self report surveys find little difference between kids in varying SES status, so much so it makes a few people in the elie status pucker up! :eek:

you even have different motivations now that performance enhancement has altered the face of the drug world lol when perceived for a socially acceptable goal, drug use becomes normalized (i.e. ritalin, adderall, GH) Many researchers are finding Normalized conditions for these substances AS WELL AS marijuana while cigarettes users are being stigmatized a lot more!

oh and by the way, because 100% of the population doesn't use illicit drugs, doesn't mean it doesn't have a grip on us! "War on Drugs"(which we are failing at miserably), prison rates, Cartels, budget spending on this more than verifies my statement.

[DDBooger]

Excellent website provided by the DOJ
http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/state_factsheets.html

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by DDBooger
correct, however you are looking at things in a way that water down the findings when not controlling for race, SES, age, etc. The levels of usage drastically goes up when you examine a certain population. Within a college population, aside from Marijuana the next drug in many areas isn't even illegal, but a controlled substance, ADHD drugs. Fact of the matter is YES, this country is immersed in drugs illegal or legal, which was my meaning, hence my drastic reach to the origins of man!:D We could learn much from Eastern philosophies that don't treat but LEAD healthier lives. In regards to drugs it is presupposition to say we are not in its grip, you have a nation south of us tearing itself apart to provide us billions in product. According to NIBRS and NCVS authorities typically only capture 1% of all crimes committed. Drug use when examined through self report surveys find little difference between kids in varying SES status, so much so it makes a few people in the elie status pucker up! :eek:

you even have different motivations now that performance enhancement has altered the face of the drug world lol when perceived for a socially acceptable goal, drug use becomes normalized (i.e. ritalin, adderall, GH) Many researchers are finding Normalized conditions for these substances AS WELL AS marijuana while cigarettes users are being stigmatized a lot more!

oh and by the way, because 100% of the population doesn't use illicit drugs, doesn't mean it doesn't have a grip on us! "War on Drugs", prison rates, Cartels, budget spending on this more than verifies my statement.
.
How can you say "correct" and yet state a case that sounds alot like you disagree with me?:crazy1:
What the heck with all the acronynms...
is SES a Sega Entertainment System?:thinking:
I don't think anyone brought up the abuse of legal drugs so how is that relevant to the discussion which seems to change every time you respond? Your a lycanthrope, chameleon poster. lol
I still disagree with your statement "that drugs already don't have a hold on us" unless you have a mouse in your pocket...:evillol:
There is a problem no doubt and your solution I think has more consequences than positives.

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by SintonFan
.
How can you say "correct" and yet state a case that sounds alot like you disagree with me?:crazy1:
What the heck with all the acronynms...
is SES a Sega Entertainment System?:thinking:
I don't think anyone brought up the abuse of legal drugs so how is that relevant to the discussion which seems to change every time you respond? Your a lycanthrope, chameleon poster. lol
I still disagree with your statement "that drugs already don't have a hold on us" unless you have a mouse in your pocket...:evillol:
There is a problem no doubt and your solution I think has more consequences than positives. correct about 100% of the population, DUH:rolleyes: lol
Sorry, I write so many proposals and trying to get things published require quick approaches to long names! :)
Abuse of legal drugs relevancy because if you haven't noticed any new commercials, they are now targeting mommy and daddy's drug cabinet! Kids are looking to manufactured controlled drugs, reasoning vary. But my point was a latent one going back to my statement that "humans have sought mind altering substances since the caveman" lol I've told you before, I could care less if you agree with me, or even believe me, most that understand the problem either share my idea or have a much more sensationalized view of it. I simply look at whats in front of me and analyze it. I have no bias, I don't support drugs! I don't have a huge marijuana leaf poster on my wall, chameleons in a aquarium, growing my own weed. I hardly take Tylenol lol. It is just logical to me. You think we'll have more problems, lol, I say those problems are here ALREADY.

[waterboy]

Here's something to think about:

:D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMSFX1Vb3xQ

[Farmersfan]

I don't think there is much of a difference between making drugs illegal and making guns illegal. The people are going to do what they are going to do. Much like our arguement about creating a "black market" for illegal guns we have created a "black market" for drugs. If you want the crimminal element to go away then you have to de-crimminalize it. Plain and simple. There would be some good things come out of legalizing drugs and some bad things. I don't support drug use but I know it is far better to let your children take drugs you know about than to let them find their own drugs in the back alley. Not only from a cost standpoint but from a quality assurance standpoint. With illegal drugs you never know what you are going to get. So in a nutshell I think we would actually be protecting our citizens if we legalized these drugs. Case Closed! When do we vote?

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
I don't think there is much of a difference between making drugs illegal and making guns illegal. The people are going to do what they are going to do. Much like our arguement about creating a "black market" for illegal guns we have created a "black market" for drugs. If you want the crimminal element to go away then you have to de-crimminalize it. Plain and simple. There would be some good things come out of legalizing drugs and some bad things. I don't support drug use but I know it is far better to let your children take drugs you know about than to let them find their own drugs in the back alley. Not only from a cost standpoint but from a quality assurance standpoint. With illegal drugs you never know what you are going to get. So in a nutshell I think we would actually be protecting our citizens if we legalized these drugs. Case Closed! When do we vote?

Since I'm not smart enough to know what would actually happen if drugs were legalized and controlled, I ask myself why no country has legalized them (with the exception of The Netherlands for small amounts of recreational drugs for personal use).

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by ronwx5x
Since I'm not smart enough to know what would actually happen if drugs were legalized and controlled, I ask myself why no country has legalized them (with the exception of The Netherlands for small amounts of recreational drugs for personal use). the moral ambiguity of it, the dark side of it, it is a structural functional necessity, how many people does law enforcement employ, the dollars spent on it, the social control apparatus itself benefits from the existence. It's a circular arrangement, not made through handshake but mutual benefit. Anyone with time read Wayward Puritan EXCELLENT book.

Here is a Republican and Libertarian Judge and former candidate's take on it
http://www.judgejimgray.com/

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by DDBooger
the moral ambiguity of it, the dark side of it, it is a structural functional necessity, how many people does law enforcement employ, the dollars spent on it, the social control apparatus itself benefits from the existence. It's a circular arrangement, not made through handshake but mutual benefit. Anyone with time read Wayward Puritan EXCELLENT book.

Here is a Republican and Libertarian Judge and former candidate's take on it
http://www.judgejimgray.com/

Good comment on why it continues, and maybe why we haven't legalized drugs. your comments don't say much about what actually happens if drugs are legalized. We certainly know what happened before and after prohibition, but that's not much help either.

I honestly believe that if drugs were legalized and controlled there would still be a black market. It took decades to mostly eradicate moonshine. The cigarette black market still exists, just not on the scale of drugs. But then, maybe quality control might make a difference.

No, I don't think we would have fewer police if drugs were legalized, just change what their priorities are.

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by ronwx5x
Good comment on why it continues, and maybe why we haven't legalized drugs. your comments don't say much about what actually happens if drugs are legalized. We certainly know what happened before and after prohibition, but that's not much help either.

I honestly believe that if drugs were legalized and controlled there would still be a black market. It took decades to mostly eradicate moonshine. The cigarette black market still exists, just not on the scale of drugs. But then, maybe quality control might make a difference.

No, I don't think we would have fewer police if drugs were legalized, just change what their priorities are. any speculation of what would occur would be just that, but because an outcome is unknown does not mean we should continue to bang out heads against a wall with the same failed policies.

[LH Panther Mom]

Murder is illegal, yet it doesn't seem to stop criminals from killing others. Driving while intoxicated is also illegal, yet it seems that there are drunks on the road quite frequently. :thinking: :thinking: Gosh, maybe we should just get rid of both of those laws since they don't seem to make much difference. :thinking:

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by LH Panther Mom
Murder is illegal, yet it doesn't seem to stop criminals from killing others. Driving while intoxicated is also illegal, yet it seems that there are drunks on the road quite frequently. :thinking: :thinking: Gosh, maybe we should just get rid of both of those laws since they don't seem to make much difference. :thinking:
Murder vs drug use:thinking:
where as murder AS A RESULT OF the illegal drug trade are?

drunk driving which kills more people as a result of the consumption of alcohol which is legal while Marijuana is not :thinking:

hmmm :thinking: decriminalizing drugs doesn't equate a drug induced orgy, same rules would apply in regards to acquisition of it only regulated, taxed and rather than dealing with shady invidivuals a sanctioned agency as farmersfan stated.

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by LH Panther Mom
Murder is illegal, yet it doesn't seem to stop criminals from killing others. Driving while intoxicated is also illegal, yet it seems that there are drunks on the road quite frequently. :thinking: :thinking: Gosh, maybe we should just get rid of both of those laws since they don't seem to make much difference. :thinking:
.
Good point!:clap:

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by LH Panther Mom
Murder is illegal, yet it doesn't seem to stop criminals from killing others. Driving while intoxicated is also illegal, yet it seems that there are drunks on the road quite frequently. :thinking: :thinking: Gosh, maybe we should just get rid of both of those laws since they don't seem to make much difference. :thinking:

Murder is infringing on someone's rights..as is DWI because you can kill someone

drug use by a person does not PHYSICALLY hurt someone else..yes the addiction can destroy a family, but hey guess what, so does drinking.

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by DDBooger
correct about 100% of the population, DUH:rolleyes: lol
Sorry, I write so many proposals and trying to get things published require quick approaches to long names! :)
Abuse of legal drugs relevancy because if you haven't noticed any new commercials, they are now targeting mommy and daddy's drug cabinet! Kids are looking to manufactured controlled drugs, reasoning vary. But my point was a latent one going back to my statement that "humans have sought mind altering substances since the caveman" lol I've told you before, I could care less if you agree with me, or even believe me, most that understand the problem either share my idea or have a much more sensationalized view of it. I simply look at whats in front of me and analyze it. I have no bias, I don't support drugs! I don't have a huge marijuana leaf poster on my wall, chameleons in a aquarium, growing my own weed. I hardly take Tylenol lol. It is just logical to me. You think we'll have more problems, lol, I say those problems are here ALREADY.
.
There is a segment of the population who won't use illegal drugs because of just that. It's illegal. What about the burden we all will have to bear when Meth or Cocaine(both among the highest addictive substances known to man) is legalized and a larger portion of the population drags us all down more than today. There are real and dangerous consequences to what you propose.
Yes, their is a demand. So nip it in the bud and reduce demand. The "Just say No" campaign did work but was abandoned in the 90's. A shame imho.:o

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by DDBooger
any speculation of what would occur would be just that, but because an outcome is unknown does not mean we should continue to bang out heads against a wall with the same failed policies.
.
Boog, isn't it just speculation on the effects of legalizing illegal drugs?

[LH Panther Mom]

You guys will fall for anything if it gives you something to debate. :devil:


When did a "terrorist training camp" thread turn into legalize drugs? More importantly.....WHY? :doh: :p

[SintonFan]

Ask the Lycanthrope Chameleon...:D

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by SintonFan
.
There is a segment of the population who won't use illegal drugs because of just that. It's illegal. What about the burden we all will have to bear when Meth or Cocaine(both among the highest addictive substances known to man) is legalized and a larger portion of the population drags us all down more than today. There are real and dangerous consequences to what you propose.
Yes, their is a demand. So nip it in the bud and reduce demand. The "Just say No" campaign did work but was abandoned in the 90's. A shame imho.:o The danger is the same today and actually the "just say no" was a complete utter failure, not due to its theory but implementation, it went the same route of scared straight and abstinence programs. Best way to keep kids off drugs is INVOLVED parents, even then, not assured. That is why drugs affects ALL people in varying socioeconomic status (SES) ;)
It is progressive and I understand your hesitancy SF. I don't expect to make believers out of anyone. This will never happen, and crazily the only party I could see pushing it is neither dem or rep but Libertarian who woould appreciate the huge reduction in spending from fighting an essentially endless war where the lines of good and bad are blurred, because even good people use drugs.

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by LH Panther Mom
You guys will fall for anything if it gives you something to debate. :devil:


When did a "terrorist training camp" thread turn into legalize drugs? More importantly.....WHY? :doh: :p

I dont know..but give it two more pages and it will turn into B-Wood is overated and should LH run the spread

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by SintonFan
.
Boog, isn't it just speculation on the effects of legalizing illegal drugs? that was my point, i can speculate, but who knows, it would just be an alternative to a losing war. A different strategy. One that hints at a better outcome by elimination of the black market. Would it have problems, sure, but my god, that is EXACTLY what we have today and growing now that the Taliban is gone and Afghanistan became a producer again. The high grade poppy is making its way here again.

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by DDBooger
now that the Taliban is gone and Afghanistan became a producer again. The high grade poppy is making its way here again. hey, I brought it back around to terrorism! :D :clap:

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by DDBooger
The danger is the same today and actually the "just say no" was a complete utter failure, not due to its theory but implementation, it went the same route of scared straight and abstinence programs. Best way to keep kids off drugs is INVOLVED parents, even then, not assured. That is why drugs affects ALL people in varying socioeconomic status (SES) ;)
It is progressive and I understand your hesitancy SF. I don't expect to make believers out of anyone. This will never happen, and crazily the only party I could see pushing it is neither dem or rep but Libertarian who woould appreciate the huge reduction in spending from fighting an essentially endless war where the lines of good and bad are blurred, because even good people use drugs.
.
That's funny, I swear that "Just say no" did have success. Show me where it didn't?
I agree that parents are important. I might add a strong Faith in God is important, too.
I would wager that kids who didn't have both, either or some strong support or belief of one at least would be much more susceptible to use illegal drugs. Why has the left been trying to tear down the family and God for decades? :doh:

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by SintonFan
.
That's funny, I swear that "Just say no" did have success. Show me where it didn't?
I agree that parents are important. I might add a strong Faith in God is important, too.
I would wager that kids who didn't have both, either or some strong support or belief of one at least would be much more susceptible to use illegal drugs. Why has the left been trying to tear down the family and God for decades? :doh: because the Heritage Foundation says so! :p
I think a stable environment is just as effective as religion.

I'll find it, their are hundred of program analysis reports on it. I'm sure I'll find some that will let me download em or I'll pick em up while on campus tomorrow.

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by LH Panther Mom
You guys will fall for anything if it gives you something to debate. :devil:


When did a "terrorist training camp" thread turn into legalize drugs? More importantly.....WHY? :doh: :p

Before the Non-Sports Forum we had no place to argue politics, guns, and drugs. Gives us something to do in the offseason. Now that Brownwood has been proven to be a nonentity we have to argue about something else and this is the place where we (so far) have been allowed to do so. Been lots of fun to here!!:cool:

When the season starts this will all go away until next year.

[pirate4state]

politics & drugs are both off limits. this is us being lax and being pansies. enjoy it while it lasts.

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by pirate4state
politics & drugs are both off limits. this is us being lax and being pansies. enjoy it while it lasts.

Notice I said so far. And quit trying to scare us.:tongue:

[pirate4state]

Originally posted by ronwx5x
Notice I said so far. And quit trying to scare us.:tongue: yeah, yall scare so easy

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by pirate4state
yeah, yall scare so easy

If we wern't so afraid we would really go at it! Just look at how many of the world's problems we have solved so far and we're just getting started.:2thumbsup

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by pirate4state
yeah, yall scare so easy don't smite me :(

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by ronwx5x
Since I'm not smart enough to know what would actually happen if drugs were legalized and controlled, I ask myself why no country has legalized them (with the exception of The Netherlands for small amounts of recreational drugs for personal use).


Are you saying America is now suppose to follow other countries? I say we need to lead the world. Take the reins and be in control.
But you can take the success that is evident in the Netherlands and extrapolate a pretty effective argument that at least some of the significant social problems we see from illegal drugs would be addressed in this country if they were made legal. Unlike the argument for making guns illegal there is no date to show it wouldn't work. But we do have data showing that what we are currently doing will never work and I believe that if it doesn't accomplish anything then we must rule on the side of freedom. (ALWAYS)!

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by LH Panther Mom
Murder is illegal, yet it doesn't seem to stop criminals from killing others. Driving while intoxicated is also illegal, yet it seems that there are drunks on the road quite frequently. :thinking: :thinking: Gosh, maybe we should just get rid of both of those laws since they don't seem to make much difference. :thinking:


Murder, drunk driving and most other crimes are in place because they have a adverse effect on the rights of others. What a person does to himself should not be regulated unless that act creates a undesireable condition for others and that is the catch 22 of drug use. But as Booger states, so does alcohol and cigarettes and neither of these are outlawed. We regulate how, when and where they can be used but not the actual use. This is also the crux of the gun law arguement. Go ahead and regulate the how, when and where but it's wrong to regulate the actual use.

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
Are you saying America is now suppose to follow other countries? I say we need to lead the world. Take the reins and be in control.
But you can take the success that is evident in the Netherlands and extrapolate a pretty effective argument that at least some of the significant social problems we see from illegal drugs would be addressed in this country if they were made legal. Unlike the argument for making guns illegal there is no date to show it wouldn't work. But we do have data showing that what we are currently doing will never work and I believe that if it doesn't accomplish anything then we must rule on the side of freedom. (ALWAYS)!

Now Farmer don't put words in my mouth. I freely stated at the beginning I don't know what would happen. The Netherlands has decriminalized small amounts of pot for personal use. They have not made the whole litany of drugs legal. And just judging from what I've read, it doesn't sound like success when young people just take government assistance, live like a commune, and do drugs all day. Yeah, the police no longer spend time taking them to jail and letting them out, but do we really want this here?

When I was young, the maximum penalty for illegal drugs was life in prison. I'm not exagerating that either. We have more or less made small amounts a misdeamenor, yet we still have a huge problem with trafficking. That change didn't seem to help much except the life imprisonment is less severe.

I don't know any answers, but I want to be able to hear from experts and not just opinions before I make a decision. I wish I were as convinced as you seem.

As far as leading the rest of the world, let me just restate that we are world leaders in quantity of drugs, murder rates, gun ownership and poor infant mortality rates. We don't always have to be leaders.

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by ronwx5x
Since I'm not smart enough to know what would actually happen if drugs were legalized and controlled, I ask myself why no country has legalized them (with the exception of The Netherlands for small amounts of recreational drugs for personal use).

honestly..a main reason more countries have not legalized drugs is because of the push the US has made on the international level..If a country recieves any aid from the US and wants to just LESSEN their drug laws the US threatens to pull the aid

Greece, Austria, and Portugal have all downgraded drug possesion

Swiss has slowly been moving to legalize at least pot

Even Britian who stands with the US on drugs has lessened their possesion laws

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
honestly..a main reason more countries have not legalized drugs is because of the push the US has made on the international level..If a country recieves any aid from the US and wants to just LESSEN their drug laws the US threatens to pull the aid

Greece, Austria, and Portugal have all downgraded drug possesion

Swiss has slowly been moving to legalize at least pot

Even Britian who stands with the US on drugs has lessened their possesion laws

I'm guessing those countries had extremely harsh penalties and just moved them to misdeamenors, much as the US has done. If you are caught in most mideast countries, the penalty is life imprisonment or in some cases execution. I don't think those folks do it out of fear of the US. We don't send aid to Western Europe or Japan, yet they are have not, for the most part, decriminalized drugs.

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by ronwx5x
I'm guessing those countries had extremely harsh penalties and just moved them to misdeamenors, much as the US has done. If you are caught in most mideast countries, the penalty is life imprisonment or in some cases execution. I don't think those folks do it out of fear of the US. We don't send aid to Western Europe or Japan, yet they are have not, for the most part, decriminalized drugs.


You know who made pot illegal in Japan? The American military occupation government did.

And Japan has a hemp liscence which is basically a loophole in the drug laws

[Farmersfan]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ronwx5x
"it doesn't sound like success when young people just take government assistance, live like a commune, and do drugs all day. Yeah, the police no longer spend time taking them to jail and letting them out, but do we really want this here"


So you saying you don't want young people taking "welfare" and doing drugs like they are in the Netherlands? I think we should keep that kind of nonsense out of our great country too!!!!:D :D

We already have more crimmnals in our prison system than we can realistically take care of. The largest percent are there for drug related crimes. Making the penalties stiffer would only increase the prison population. I don't think we need that either.

And I honestly thought you WERE hearing from experts on this forum!!!!!!!:(

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
[QUOTE]Originally posted by ronwx5x
"it doesn't sound like success when young people just take government assistance, live like a commune, and do drugs all day. Yeah, the police no longer spend time taking them to jail and letting them out, but do we really want this here"


So you saying you don't want young people taking "welfare" and doing drugs like they are in the Netherlands? I think we should keep that kind of nonsense out of our great country too!!!!:D :D

We already have more crimmnals in our prison system than we can realistically take care of. The largest percent are there for drug related crimes. Making the penalties stiffer would only increase the prison population. I don't think we need that either.

And I honestly thought you WERE hearing from experts on this forum!!!!!!!:(


I don't BELIEVE those in prison are there for recreational use but rather trafficking. And I KNOW we have many experts here, I just have my own opinion as to who they are!:D

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by DDBooger
because the Heritage Foundation says so! :p
I think a stable environment is just as effective as religion.

I'll find it, their are hundred of program analysis reports on it. I'm sure I'll find some that will let me download em or I'll pick em up while on campus tomorrow.
.
Thanks.
It's is funny but I am seriously thinking about joining the Heritage Foundation.
Have you heard of Imprimus, a monthly speech digest? It free and delivered straight to your door from Hillsdale College. Good stuff there pardna.:thumbsup:

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by ronwx5x
I don't BELIEVE those in prison are there for recreational use but rather trafficking. And I KNOW we have many experts here, I just have my own opinion as to who they are!:D


Trafficking is only the tip of the iceberg. Most are there for crimes committed in an effort to get the drugs. Making the drug readily available at a reasonable price might free up 60% of the prison space and expense. Just another vote FOR legalizing....

[PPSTATEBOUND]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
I don't think there is much of a difference between making drugs illegal and making guns illegal. The people are going to do what they are going to do. Much like our arguement about creating a "black market" for illegal guns we have created a "black market" for drugs. If you want the crimminal element to go away then you have to de-crimminalize it. Plain and simple. There would be some good things come out of legalizing drugs and some bad things. I don't support drug use but I know it is far better to let your children take drugs you know about than to let them find their own drugs in the back alley. Not only from a cost standpoint but from a quality assurance standpoint. With illegal drugs you never know what you are going to get. So in a nutshell I think we would actually be protecting our citizens if we legalized these drugs. Case Closed! When do we vote?


Farmer this time I agree......

My 1/2 cent worth....if that

FACT......"Illegal Drugs" do Kill a few People "Natural selection" IMO, you know weed them out.

FACT......"Legal Drugs" kill many, many, many more. :crying:

FACT.......The "DRUG WAR" as it is called has also killed many "some completely innocent of doing or trafficking"

FACT.......The "DRUG WAR" not the "DRUGS" has created the black market for them and the drug cartells that do nothing but create endless pain and suffering everywhere they flurish.


FACT.......The "Drug War" started in the early 70's is a complete, and on going ..did I say "Complete and on going" FAILURE...!!


So hey....??????? when do we Vote?

Lets stop the madness...

P.S. sorry about Your Bird.

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
Trafficking is only the tip of the iceberg. Most are there for crimes committed in an effort to get the drugs. Making the drug readily available at a reasonable price might free up 60% of the prison space and expense. Just another vote FOR legalizing....

Actually the majority are most likely in prison for burgalry or robbery, whether it involved money for drugs or not. That's true for my stupid nephew anyway. If they have no money, making it cheaper would probably just let them buy more with their illgotten gains. I doubt very much they would stop stealing just because the drugs are cheaper. Not many "addicts" work for drugs, unless you consider stealing a job. :doh: