Interesting conservative qoutes

[Finsfan1984]

If I didnt think your guns could get in the hands of criminals so easily I would care less what you prefer to have in your arsenal. But guns are illegally bought and stolen each day from good upstanding citizens like yourself. As Reagen said, over time their supply will dry up. As a criminal is busted with one or found with one it is another one off of the streets. PCP doesnt help much with hole or three in the lungs. Addition to your Jefferson qoute, it was a time of single shot muskets. I seriously dount he envisioned assault rifles with 30 round mags. Should we have bradley tanks in our garages as well? Should private citizen be allowed to own nuclear weapons? You tell me where the line is drawn. I draw it at self defense. High capacity mags are made for one thing. Killing as many people in as little time possible. A hand gun with 10 rounds is more than sufficient to stop 2 or 3 men in the event of a break in. Thats is if you know how to use it. Not sure why we dont have mandatory classes for gun ownership. I would be pissed if a little old lady shot my house up cause she didnt know how to shoot the damn thing and missed the perp by 20 feet.

Oh really?? And I guess your an expert on shootouts and home invasions? Well let me tell you from FIRST HAND experience, no one can predict how many weapons or how much ammo your gooing to need. This is an absolutely rediculous statement, c'mon man!! You can NEVER be too prepared for anything when it comes to fighting for your life. The best rifle/pistol experts, most experienced soldiers/policemen, most highly trained soldiers/policemen will ALL tell you that NO ONE can say how many rounds they are going to need in a gun fight or in a self defense situation. Everything is different, and each situation is different, and there is no way to know whats going to happen.

[GoFins!]

Not to get too off-topic here, but that same line of thinking should be applied to the drug war as well, correct?

I'm not the one to ask but I suppose it could be. There are some key differences though - such as nothing in the Bill of Rights about illegal drugs, and most guns are currently legal while most drugs are currently illegal.

[rob19]

I'm not the one to ask but I suppose it could be. There are some key differences though - such as nothing in the Bill of Rights about illegal drugs, and most guns are currently legal while most drugs are currently illegal.

So why should drugs be illegal though? Unless you can figure out a way to uninvent drugs or get criminals to obey the laws these ideas just aren't realistic.

See what I did there?

I actually agree that such a ban wouldn't be as effective as people might believe, but what drives me up a wall is when I see all these self-proclaimed conservatives like O'Reilly double-talking & giving all these reasons as to why we should take responsibility for human action, not blame inanimate objects; guns don't kill people, people kill people; you can't just ignore the reality of the demand, people will find ways to supply it; etc, etc. But when you ask if that reasoning applies to the drug-war, then it's all, "..hmm, well... I don't like drugs.. that idea makes me uncomfortable... sooooooo no, this logic only applies to things that I happen to like". At the very least be ideologically consistent.

It's maddening flagrant hypocrisy. I've said this before & I'll say it again; anyone who's anti-gun control & pro-drug war at the same time is either a hypocrite or not very bright.

[TheWalrus]

I don't think the drug war and gun control issues are really all that similar, to be honest. The negative aspects of drugs usually only affect the user themselves (and their friends and family, perhaps). The fact that some drugs are addictive also makes for inflexible demand, which a limiting of supply can't affect.

Guns on the other hand are more likely to have negative effects on lots of people, not just the user. And they're not addictive, which means demand is more malleable. Sure, some people will go scrambling to a black market to buy guns if they're banned, but not nearly in the same numbers as drug users who use the black market to buy drugs they're addicted to or just want to use.

I mean, I get what you're saying. But the principle you're talking about is really only applicable at the macro level. The comparison breaks down in the details.

[rob19]

I'm not saying the demand is the same, but I do believe there's a big enough demand for both of them that a prohibition isn't really a justifiably realistic solution.

Yes, guns have the greater potential to affect others than drugs, but if what we're talking about is limiting availability, I've already made my case in other threads as to why I believe a prohibition for either of those things doesn't accomplish that.

[GoFins!]

So why should drugs be illegal though?

Why should addictive/dangerous/mind altering drugs be illegal?

I don't care - but they're probably illegal for various reasons, the most obvious being the same reason you're not allowed to drive while under the influence. Many harder drugs affect your perception/behavior and make you more likely to harm someone else or yourself. Habitual drug use creates health problems that are very expensive, and many addicts, unable to keep a job or save any money, don't have the means to pay for the treatment or hospitalization so society incurs those costs.

If we could create a way to keep users away from others while under the influence then perhaps drugs shouldn't be illegal. Users could check into a facility and be required to stay there until sober. They'd have to sign a waiver to any health coverage above what they can personally afford. If someone drinks until he needs a liver transplant then he needs to pay for that out of his own pocket.

If the drugs were free and absolutely unlimited in these facilities then many of the problems associated with habitual drug use might take care of themselves.

... all these reasons as to why we should take responsibility for human action, not blame inanimate objects...

Again, I don't really care about the issue of legalization of drugs .... but guns alone don't affect your perception or behavior. While guns don't cause "stupid" I suppose they can make "stupid" more prone to show itself.

I think making drugs lethal would solve more problems than making drugs legal, but that being said ... if "you" take drugs, earn the money you use to purchase them legally, stay out of society while on drugs that might make you a threat to others, and have your own means to cover health issues related to your drug use, then I don't have a problem your drug use.

[rob19]

Why should addictive/dangerous/mind altering drugs be legal?

Such as alcohol?

I don't care - but they're probably illegal for various reasons, the most obvious being the same reason you're not allowed to drive while under the influence. Many harder drugs affect your perception/behavior and make you more likely to harm someone else or yourself. Habitual drug use creates health problems that are very expensive, and many addicts, unable to keep a job or save any money, don't have the means to pay for the treatment or hospitalization so society incurs those costs.

I’m not advocating driving on anything, but alcohol is legal & it’s impairing. To suggest that just because something is impairing should make it illegal is a silly notion in my opinion. Also, Cigarettes/Tobacco kill more people (half a million Americans yearly) & cause far more health problems than every single illegal drug combined.

If we could create a way to keep users away from others while under the influence then perhaps drugs shouldn't be illegal. Users could check into a facility and be required to stay there until sober. They'd have to sign a waiver to any health coverage above what they can personally afford. If someone drinks until he needs a liver transplant then he needs to pay for that out of his own pocket.

If the drugs were free and absolutely unlimited in these facilities then many of the problems associated with habitual drug use might take care of themselves.

Opium dens I actually thought were a good idea by the Chinese, but to say they should be “required” to go to those places is absurd. Alcohol drinkers don’t have to do such a thing. It’s just not a realistic idea, or enforceable.

Again, I don't really care about the issue of legalization of drugs .... but guns alone don't affect your perception or behavior. While guns don't cause "stupid" I suppose they can make "stupid" more prone to show itself.

Guns are more likely to harm other people than drugs though, where as drugs just affect the user. Also, we already have mind altering legal drugs; some of which are far worse than some currently illegal drugs.

I think making drugs lethal would solve more problems than making drugs legal, but that being said ... if "you" take drugs, earn the money you use to purchase them legally, stay out of society while on drugs that might make you a threat to others, and have your own means to cover health issues related to your drug use, then I don't have a problem your drug use.

Exactly, as long as I’m not causing harm to others I should be allowed to take whatever I wish to take in the privacy of my own home (there’s public intoxication laws with alcohol so it’s no different there; except for bars which are basically the same as your suggested opium dens). To lock people in cages though (50% of all prisoners), for doing something which hurts absolutely no one but themselves is barbaric. It’s also conceivable that some, if not all of the money that would be gained by taxation of these drugs could be put back into the healthcare system.

This I believe comes down to one of your first principles; demand. When your thinking about prohibiting something, the first & foremost thing one should ask themselves is if there’s a large enough demand for said object that prohibiting it would just not be a realistic option. For drugs, the answer is unequivocally yes. For semi-auto’s, I believe that answer is also yes, but to a lesser extent.

[Tetragrammaton]

You aren't following history very much if you think Benjamin Franklin or Thomas Jefferson were conservative.

[Dolphins9954]

Semi-auto rifles account for less than 3% of all gun crimes. So tell me a better plan to stop gun violence. Because this one sucks a**.

[Valandui]

You aren't following history very much if you think Benjamin Franklin or Thomas Jefferson were conservative.

Definitely. Patrick Henry would be more appropriate.