Totalitarianism under the mark of altruism and safety.
OTTAWA (Reuters) -Canada’s government introduced legislation Monday to implement a “national freeze” on the sale and purchase of handguns as part of a gun control package that would also limit magazine capacities and ban some toys that look like guns.
The new legislation, which resurrects some measures that were shelved last year amid a national election, comes just a week after a gunman killed 19 children and two teachers in their classroom in Uvalde, Texas.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau told reporters the new measures were needed as gun violence was increasing.
“We need only look south of the border to know that if we do not take action firmly and rapidly it gets worse and worse and gets more difficult to counter,” he said.
The handgun freeze would contain exceptions, including for elite sport shooters, Olympic athletes and security guards. Canadians who already own handguns would be allowed to keep them.
Will anyone take a bet that hand guns are not sold out at many stores all throughout Canada already? If it is passed as worded above and people know how the Gov’t will vote ahead of time, it will likely be the biggest jump in handgun sales in Canadian history.
And wasn’t Uvalde an assault rifle? Haven’t many of the recent school shootings been with rifles?
T. Yes. It was a rifle, but Canada has seen an increase in all gun violence. This is more of a reaction to those statistics. I think that the US could take a few things from this. Red Flag laws, and magazine limits specifically.
But I would also love to see a national gun registry and restricted sales of specific weapons based on age.
We have seen that an overwhelming majority of mass shootings are perpetrated by young males. I think that we could look at restricting sales of guns similar to the AR-15 to ages 25+, much of the current science says that the human brain doesn’t fully mature until the age of 25. The frontal cortex that helps inhibit impulses doesn’t finish developing until age 25ish. Personally I would be ok with restricting most gun purchases to age 25, but I don’t think that would fly.
“much of the current science says that the human brain doesn’t fully mature until the age of 25. The frontal cortex that helps inhibit impulses doesn’t finish developing until age 25ish.”
Same for voting? Military service? Driving? Criminal prosecution? I could make the argument for 28 or 16 on any of those.
I don’t support the piecemeal exercise of rights and responsibilities inherent in being an American citizen. I think we need to choose the age of majority and it applies for everything. The age we choose will inevitably be flawed because individuals mature at different rates depending on their environment and biology. But age is the best proxy we have for determining when people should be mature enough to exercise their rights and responsibilities in an adult manner.
>But age is the best proxy we have for determining when people should be mature enough to exercise their rights and responsibilities in an adult manner.
At conception? Heh.
JV, I am just saying an assault rifle killing seems to be a bad trigger for a handgun law. Liberal minds work in strange ways, I guess.
Owen, we do have different age options for those things. Some states allow car rental at 18, (some companies restrict to to 21). Driving is allowed at 16. Drinking at age 21. Smoking 18. House of Representatives is age 25. Run for Senate is age 30. President at 35. Our government already does this.
We allow an 18 year old to sign up for military service, but that is a very restricted and monitored environment.
I don’t believe we need to have an “absolute age” for all items. We have all the freedom in the world to make any rational decisions. And you are right that no age will be absolutely perfect, but by looking at the statistics and science, we can safely assume an age where specific things make more sense. I don’t know if 25 is the correct answer for gun restriction. But, it is at least a viable option. Or how about you need to register a month ahead of time to purchase a gun, similar to voting? Or you are forced to purchase some sort of “firearm liability insurance”. Ultimately I think the first step is a national gun registry.
No solution will be perfect for gun control. No solution will completely eliminate mass shootings and gun violence. But, we are currently doing… NOTHING to address the issue. This isn’t a mental health problem, other countries have the same mental health issue. This isn’t a religious issue. This isn’t a video game issue. This is a gun issue. This is an issue with the ease at which we all have access to guns.
I still find it funny that conservatives push for less and less gun restrictions and more and more voting restrictions. There is a fun hypocrisy to it all.
T. Yes, this is a “trigger” for a handgun law. Most mass shootings are NOT done with assault rifles. They are done with handguns. Assault rifles seem to be the choice of the pre-planned maximum casualty scenarios, the ones that get the most media attention (schools, supermarkets, offices, churches).
How about prohibiting young black gang-affiliated males from having guns?
Talk about statistics and probability…….
>How about prohibiting young black gang-affiliated males
How about we not?
First, Johnny, the smoking aga is now 21.
And what is the definition of an assault weapon, unless you consider all guns assault weapons.
Red flag laws can be useful in some cases but as we saw the last mass shootings and other shootings, it didn’t work. What makes you think that will work? And do you support the Federal government to enforce red flag rules as democrats and RINOs support? If sou, you would be a fool.
It makes sense to deny guns to any blacks .
Only white folks know how to use guns efficiently … in mass shootings .
>It makes sense to deny guns to any blacks .
Only white folks know how to use guns efficiently … in mass shootings .
The epitome of liberal thought. By statistics as Dad29 pointed out, denying young blacks would indeed make sense. By numbers, blacks do about 50% of all murders in the US yearly, most done by men under 25 with black targets. So one demographic of 12.5% of the US population do half the murders.
But this is only in the statistics. The news that liberals listen to emphasize the mass murders done by whites which are just a small portion of all murders in the US, so their thoughts and desired actions are based on the few, not the many, just as their handlers want.
Anyone who did any research would feel that denying guns to young blacks is the best single thing we could do to lower homicides in the US, but liberals are not shown figures, they are shown race baiting stories intended to get politicians votes.
Go ahead MHMaley, show us the figures on murders by all whites and the figures by all blacks in any year…
It is perfectly okay to liberals to point a bad thing done by a white person and taboo to point out anything bad done by a black person. This will guarantee that inner city blacks never get the help they deserve, because we can’t talk about their real problems. We can’t talk about the uncontrolled black on black crime, the ‘jobless’ blacks really just employed in illegal activities, the silence of the black neighborhoods due first to fear of reprisal from the criminals and second to the indoctrination to never trust the police, etc. We can only talk about ‘police racism’ and white on black crimes. Because if you do try to understand the real problems you are a racist…
Mar, thanks for clearing up the smoking thing. I have never smoked in my life, and haven’t bought a pack for a friend in probably 20 years.
As far as Red Flag laws, most scenarios that I have heard involve local police and it is just funded / enforced by the feds. I wouldn’t have any issue with them.
And as far as young black men buying guns… my guess is that most of the guns involved in murders are NOT registered or purchased by them directly. Possibly strawman purchases and thefts. These are another thing that a national registry could help with.
And finally the definition of an “assault rifle” can easily be done, we have done it in the past. This is literally the smallest hurdle in any plan.
‘And finally the definition of an “assault rifle” can easily be done, we have done it in the past. This is literally the smallest hurdle in any plan.”
But you didn’t answer the question.
JonnyV can define “assault rifle” for us!! He said it’s easy.
So go ahead, JV……….define it.
BumperSticker Maley showed up to paste a bumper sticker in the thread. That’s the extent of his thinking.
T. had it right: the Left has no interest at all in facts, figures, and probabilities. Their only interest is to remove guns from the market and to Hell with the blacks and Hispanics who are in danger every single day from the Aspiring Rappers who were Going to Change Their Lives………….after they gunned down 3-4 members of the OTHER drug gang in the area.
Let’s see how “assault weapons” get defined here. That should be fun. Will it have a black thingy that goes up?
What exactly does a national gun registry accomplish? What lefties don’t seem to comprehend is the fact that criminals and psychos don’t feel compelled to follow any laws. None. More laws, rules, and regulations will no more curb their behavior than what is already on the books. No access to a gun? Not a problem really; just steal mommy’s SUV and drive it through a parade. Always good for a dozen or so.
Strip away all the bullshit and it always cycles back to the criminals and psychos themselves. Gee, what about our society might explain such a proliferation of misfits?
>It makes sense to deny guns to any blacks
That was the intentions when the Republicans first started passing gun control laws in 1967.
>We can’t talk about the uncontrolled black on black crime, the ‘jobless’ blacks really just employed in illegal activities, the silence of the black neighborhoods due first to fear of reprisal from the criminals and second to the indoctrination to never trust the police, etc.
You constantly whine about the things “we can’t talk about”, and yet here you are talking about those exact things.
>What lefties don’t seem to comprehend is the fact that criminals and psychos don’t feel compelled to follow any laws. None. More laws, rules, and regulations will no more curb their behavior than what is already on the books.
With that in mind, do you beleive we should live in a society with no actual “laws” what-so-ever? After all, you seem to be saying they do no good at all & passing&enforcing ’em are just a waste of time&energy. Please clarify…thanks.
Dad29. The previous definition included…
Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and has two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash hider or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher
Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
Barrel shroud safety feature that prevents burns to the operator
A manufactured weight of 50 ounces (1.41kg) or more when the pistol is unloaded
A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.
Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
A fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds
Detachable magazine.
How about we start there. That is what it was in the 90s. The previous law also banned other specific weapons you can find in the wikipedia article.
Merlin, a national gun registry is a place to start to help curb strawman purchases. How about we keep track of WHO purchases, owns, and resells guns. And how about they need to be re-registered every few years (similar to a voting registration) to verify you still own the guns.
Imagine a scenario where you purchase a gun in 2022, and sometime in 2025 you need to go into any registered firearm sales establishment (or local law enforcement) and just prove you still have ownership of said weapon. I would think that those stores may actually like that you are compelled to go into their store. Now you are boosting the economy too. We already have similar scenarios with vehicles and emissions testing.
Force background checks on private sales as well. Create a universal 5 day waiting period (that MAY have saved 4 lives a few days ago) for gun purchases.
>You constantly whine about the things “we can’t talk about”, and yet here you are talking about those exact things.
Yeah, but you aren’t answering, nor any other liberal here. I am surprised (impressed?) you didn’t call me a racist right off, but do you want to discuss those things? Me talking about it is a waste of time if libs won’t respond…(Other than the inanity you gave it above)
So anyone starts a conversation about black crime on a local news talk show, where does it go? (Hint: Racism, hate speech, the disadvantages of inner city residents, police brutality, etc) If liberals were seriously interested in solving minority problems they would talk about such things. Instead, you only find it on a conservative blog, because being stamped “racist” is a pretty nasty label in the US today once social media takes it up.
>With that in mind, do you beleive we should live in a society with no actual “laws” what-so-ever?
No, we believe that the laws should be satisfactorily applied to everyone. For liberals it means going after rioters from all riots and calling out black on black crime with the same press they give to crimes committed by any other. For conservatives it means stopping rich people from buying their way out of crimes.
We believe that laws taking away rights guaranteed in the constitution that penalize the innocent and not the guilty should be considered carefully or stayed away from entirely. Liberals tend to agree that most guns used as murder weapons were illegally obtained and/or defaced to hide the origin. What good is a registry that shows only the legal guns?
Jonny-
We’re dancing all around the issue of deviant human behavior here and how we choose to deal with it. We’re living the results of a society that has collectively decided our tolerance level is only triggered when the consequence of sociopathic/psychopathic behavior escalates to deaths. Removing inanimate objects from deviants still doesn’t adequately address a need to lower the threshold for separating those deviants from the rest of the law abiding society. We’re seeing that we can’t have it all ways.
>>What lefties don’t seem to comprehend is the fact that criminals and psychos don’t feel compelled to follow any laws. None. More laws, rules, and regulations will no more curb their behavior than what is already on the books.
With that in mind, do you beleive we should live in a society with no actual “laws” what-so-ever? After all, you seem to be saying they do no good at all & passing&enforcing ’em are just a waste of time&energy. Please clarify…thanks.
There’s that typical lefty lack of comprehension rearing its ugly head again. Such exaggerated leaps in reasoning almost ensures that clarity will never be yours.
>Yeah, but you aren’t answering, nor any other liberal here. I am surprised (impressed?) you didn’t call me a racist right off
You’re spewing a whole lotta prejudism in just a few words. Maybe the reason people shy away from having a serous convo with you is due to you making asinine assumptions like those.
That aside, you previously said you “can’t” talk about those issues&topics, as if you would be punished for doing so. Now you are saying that actually it does get talked about but it just doesn’t always go the way you want it to go.
Two totally different things – won’t dispute the latter, but am calling out the former as absolute bullshit.
>we believe that the laws should be satisfactorily applied to everyone
I was asking your own opinion, and did not know you are speaking on behalf of an organization/group. Just to be clear, what group(s) are you the spokesperson for?
>typical lefty
knee-jerk assumption
Labels appear to be very important to you, which is why I find it both shocking & amusing how wrong you are in applying that one to me. Makes me wonder how much thought&reflection you give in regards to all the other opinions you also hold.
So a semi-auto AR with detachable magazine and a pistol grip will be just fine and dandy.
Good.
The people I know who own AR’s have exactly that spec. And as a matter of interest, every AR manufacturer will immediately drop “flash hiders” and telescoping/folding stocks from their line of goods in the USA. That’s about what happened last time around so there were plenty of AR’s sold, legally.
As to the pistols: the ‘magazine that attaches outside the grip’ part will be a problem because such a mag can be purchased separately on the corner of 16th and Clarke, along with the UN-registered pistol.
You ignore the fact that criminal gun purchasers will NOT ‘register’ their guns. And “shall not be infringed” will obviate your idea of forcing gun owners to “re-register” or “prove they have” registered guns.
Nice try, though.
doesn’t adequately address a need to lower the threshold for separating those deviants from the rest of the law abiding society.
And the Left never will, either. To them, Jack Nicholson’s character in “One Flew Over….” is the ONLY kind of character ever involuntarily placed into an institution; that’s why involuntary commitment went away in this country.
But there’s another reason: solving problems is NOT what politicians do, as Trump found out the hard way. Problems are meant to be aggravated or magnified so politicians can stay in office by campaigning on how they will “fix” it–or how the Other Guy will NOT “fix it.”
Trump paid the price for resolving issues here and abroad. The “Whole of Government” went after him (that includes some NGO’s such as the Press, Big Tech, and the US Chamber of Commerce)–and found a way to commit election fraud so vast and widespread that even Trumps 75 million++ votes could not overcome it.
So no: there will not be a “solution” to “gun crime” and “assault weapons.”
Because we all know it’s not the guns.
Republicans first started passing gun control laws in 1967.
The Mulford Act was passed by Democrats AND Republicans. All it did was require a PERMIT to carry, something that the Democrats told us would lead to umpty-quadzillion deaths. We’re still waiting for that to come to pass.
And as you know–but selectively forgot–the Democrats were the originators of anti-black gun-control. In the South, after the Civil War. They also invented ways to keep blacks from voting that had nothing to do with “ID”.
Nice try.
T. Many guns are defaced, but not all of them.
So, here is the question for the 2nd amendment supporters. Is there ANY policy that you think would help reduce or improve gun violence and particularly mass shootings in places like schools, hospitals, playgrounds, churches, etc.
Dad29, the only thing we seem to agree upon is that the current gov’t isn’t actually interested in solving problems. As far as “shall not be infringed”. Your interpretation is stupid. By your interpretation, you should be allowed to own ANY firearm of ANY caliber. Automatic, semi, etc. Otherwise we are “infringing”. None of the options that I put out there would infringe on your rights. None stop you from keeping or bearing Arms, just specific weapons.
I still enjoy your lunatic “stolen election” BS. It makes me laugh every time. Thanks for that. The most scrutinized election in history (maybe behind Gore/Bush?). So funny every time.
>The Mulford Act was passed by Democrats AND Republicans
Yup, it sure was and I didn’t say otherwise. However, it is named after a Republican and signed into law by not only a Republican, but the poster-child for the modern-day party. It was also endorsed by the NRA.
>would lead to umpty-quadzillion deaths. We’re still waiting for that to come to pass.
Is that the actual number they gave at the time? And what do you beleive the number currently is?
>Is there ANY policy that you think would help reduce or improve gun violence and particularly mass shootings in places like schools, hospitals, playgrounds, churches, etc.
As a strong 2nd amendment supporter, I view it as a protected right and thus have a hard time with any restrictions on it which are more stringent than other rights protected by the Constitution. Revoke that amendment and guns can be as regulated as an automobile. But until then, you can’t treat firearms much differently than speech, religion, abortion, voting, etc, etc.
All that aside…and I know it may comes across as a hollow-cliché…but mass shootings are a mental health problem not a gun problem, and must be addressed as such. Enacting a strong&solid “medicare for all” program will go a long ways towards the mental crisis in America. Economic changes (such as UBI and/or FairTax) should also have a positive effect on our society’s mental health & morale, resulting in less violence overall. It would also help reduce the perceived need to commit crime. Plus – a large amount of gun violence is directly related to the illegal drug trade…ending the War on Drugs will go a long ways towards stopping the blood in the streets.
With those changes there will be little need for more stringent firearms laws then we already have in place, and none of what is suggested infringes upon the Constitution.
Penquin, I support the 2nd amendment. I think people should have the right to protect themselves with guns. Revoking the 2nd amendment won’t happen, and isn’t realistic.
I do think we need to address mental health in the country, but I have a MAJOR problem with people just categorizing mass shooters as people with “mental health” issues. By that logic, every criminal just has mental health issues. They guy who just shot up the hospital, was that mental health or was it frustration and anger? The gang banger who shoots his rival over drug turf… mental health because of his lack of compassion? Too often people throw mental health out as a “reason” for these. But that isn’t usually the case. Most were never diagnosed with any sort of mental health issue prior to the incident.
I also agree that we need to end the drug war, that will help with the violence we see on the streets. And universal healthcare as well. But those are different discussions.
>I was asking your own opinion, and did not know you are speaking on behalf of an organization/group. Just to be clear, what group(s) are you the spokesperson for?
And here’s the problem… first you take what someone said and completely misconstrue it… T says “More laws, rules, and regulations will no more curb their behavior than what is already on the books.” and you try to spin that as “With that in mind, do you beleive we should live in a society with no actual “laws” what-so-ever? After all, you seem to be saying they do no good at all & passing&enforcing ’em are just a waste of time&energy. Please clarify…thanks.” Which is just fucking stupid…. fucking stupid.
And then he replies with a thought out reply… and you only take issue with his use of the word “We”…. nothing about what he said… just that you now want to pick apart what group he represents when he wrote “we”.
Well, he said similar to what I would have said, so the group so far is T and I and he’s done a great job representing us. Now that you’ve been proven even MORE stupid, do you want to discuss what he wrote, or just a single word?
>Which is just fucking stupid…. fucking stupid.
No it isn’t stupid…not one bit. Rather, it is your comment that is fucking stupid. With poop on top, and corn in the poop. The smelly kind of poop, none of that dried-up shit.
So now that you’ve proven to be even MORE stupid than even me, why should anyone want to discuss anything you wrote…even if it is merely a single word?
*rolls eyes*
the poster-child for the modern-day party.
Still living in the last century, pal? Trump is the poster-child today.
I may have exaggerated slightly on the number of deaths Democrats predicted. But not by much, if you take all their statements cumulatively. And–as usual–almost all the deaths are in areas controlled by drug gangs which, by and large, don’t give a flying f**k about JonnyV’s new laws.
So once again, let’s ban gun ownership by young gang-affiliated black men. That’s where the effect will be greatest.
By your interpretation, you should be allowed to own ANY firearm of ANY caliber. Automatic, semi, etc. Otherwise we are “infringing”.
Yes. So what?
None of the options that I put out there would infringe on your rights. None stop you from keeping or bearing Arms, just specific weapons.
I see. You’ll infringe on only certain rights, not all of them.
Damn kind of you.
Is there ANY policy that you think would help reduce or improve gun violence and particularly mass shootings in places like schools, hospitals, playgrounds, churches, etc.
As far as ‘guns’ go, the answer is no, given the Constitution we have.
Since you seem to think that sin doesn’t exist, and mental health is not an issue, your lunacy is amusing.
Rather, it is your comment that is fucking stupid. With poop on top, and corn in the poop. The smelly kind of poop, none of that dried-up shit.
Looks like Owen picked up a coprophiliac! Can ID various degrees of poop-stink from text only! Wow. That’s real talent.
Economic changes (such as UBI and/or FairTax) should also have a positive effect on our society’s mental health & morale, resulting in less violence overall. It would also help reduce the perceived need to commit crime.
Hell, yes!! It’ll work just as well as the War on Poverty!!!
Plus – a large amount of gun violence is directly related to the illegal drug trade…ending the War on Drugs will go a long ways towards stopping the blood in the streets.
Legalized fentanyl. Who’da Thunk?
Aaaand, it’s Miller time!
Go do something fun.
By the way, the 4th Circuit has found that barring 18-year-olds from purchasing rifles is un-Constitutional.
Dad29, you like to twist words. You should be a politician. I clearly said that mental health is an issue, but using it as an excuse for mass shootings is just lazy and a lie.
And no, sin doesn’t exist. It is made up for people who need some sort of deity to give them direction and morality. Believing in an afterlife also makes their lives feel like they have more meaning. So there is that.
>No it isn’t stupid…not one bit. Rather, it is your comment that is fucking stupid.
That’s all you have? Most of the liberal trolls here at least try a lot harder before giving up like you just did. But I’m sure you’re quite used to disappointing those around you.
I clearly said that mental health is an issue, but using it as an excuse for mass shootings is just lazy and a lie.
Yes, you did. Mis-read your remark.
So if not “mental health” and not “sin,” then what, with specific reference to Uvalde, Parkland, and Columbine?
Dad29. Clearly I can’t state for sure. None of us can. There COULD be underlying mental health issues, but we can’t say for sure. But other reasons… Bullying. Hate. Religion. Conspiracy Theories. Revenge. Anger. Abuse. Fame.
We all understand that the Earth is round. But there are flat-earthers out there. I wouldn’t categorize them as having mental health issues. The most scrutinized election in history (2020), and people believe there is secretly mass voter fraud that stole the election. I wouldn’t categorize those people with mental health issues either.
Dad29, you believe in an invisible wizard who made everything. And only lets you into the good place if you are a good person who believes ONLY what is written in a book. If you explain that to a person, it sounds insane. But we call it “faith”.
We can’t understand what would push a person to just open fire on a group of people. School, church, concert, etc. So it is really easy to just say, “they have something wrong in their brain.” and write it off as “mental health issues.” For years our presidents have been killing innocent people overseas in the name of national security. Collateral damage. How can they justify killing dozens of innocent people? Do they have mental health issues or have they just been able to convince themselves that what they are doing is for some sort of greater good?
I don’t know what causes the mass shooters in each incident. My guess is different things. But we need to try harder to find out and try to stop them. Maybe that is more money for mental health. Maybe that is better background checks and waiting periods. I personally have NO problem making it harder to get a gun, as long as we make sure that getting a gun for law abiding citizens is possible. We also need to find out what is causing the culture of crime in many of our minority centric areas. Is it a lack of hope? Education? Drug war?
I can tell you what isn’t the answer… turning our schools into prisons for kids. It clearly doesn’t help. There are always ways around it or thru it. And it is extremely costly.
Penquin
>You’re spewing a whole lotta prejudism in just a few words. Maybe the reason people shy away from having a serous convo with you is due to you making asinine assumptions like those.
There it is! I am speaking ‘prejudism’, good job. What assumptions are you talking about? I stated you weren’t discussing it and I was surprised you did not call me a racist (yet). Neither are assumptions, so what are you talking about?
>That aside, you previously said you “can’t” talk about those issues&topics, as if you would be punished for doing so. Now you are saying that actually it does get talked about but it just doesn’t always go the way you want it to go.
You left out the all important qualification: “Me talking about it is a waste of time if libs won’t respond…”
I have had those conversations with other conservatives, but preaching to the choir gains few converts (so yes, I do talk about it, but only with people who agree, because people who don’t won’t talk about it as a ‘racist topic’). I “can’t” talk about it with liberals either through non-response, being immediately labeled racist (most common) or, I guess I should now add sidestepping the issue by nitpicking at wording or intentionally/unintentionally not understanding basic concepts, just for you, Penguin. It has zero to do with the conversation not going the way I want, other than that no libs will discuss it. I have no idea what assumptions I have made about libs. You AREN’T discussing the actual issue, I am not assuming you aren’t discussing it.
As far as crying bullshit, I really could not give a f$%k what your opinion is on the consequences of having a discussion that you/liberals won’t have in the first place. You have no standing until you engage.
>I was asking your own opinion, and did not know you are speaking on behalf of an organization/group. Just to be clear, what group(s) are you the spokesperson for?
When I read that after submission, I regretted that I used ‘we’ as I do not officially comment on behalf of others, so I apologize for that, it was my opinion. When I wrote it, I was thinking of many of the conservatives on this and a couple of other blogs where it has been discussed, but I have no right to have included them. Consider the “we” redacted and insert “I”.
JonnyV
>T. Many guns are defaced, but not all of them.
So, here is the question for the 2nd amendment supporters. Is there ANY policy that you think would help reduce or improve gun violence and particularly mass shootings in places like schools, hospitals, playgrounds, churches, etc.
Penguin answered your question as I would have and still you are quibbling. With 330,000,000 million people you could find thousands of different reasons for every problem so no solutions are perfect (though Switzerland has the best laws, imo). Of course better mental healthcare is not a perfect fix that erases all gun misuse, and of course not all guns are defaced, but you asked for a policy that 2nd amendment supporters would get behind and were given the best one in my opinion. Asked and answered well. If you want to ask for more solutions, go ahead, but trying to discredit better mental healthcare is wrong.
Police find killers by tracing the gun quite often, but the point was that most PROFESSIONALS (and I would include anyone ’employed in criminal activities’) who use murder as an acceptable business tactic DO deface the guns and these are the people that actual gun laws are primarily aimed at. And gun laws would not work against those types of gun users, there are too many ways to get around them if guns will still be available to law abiding citizens.
Hat tip to Jason, he was specifically one of the ‘we’ I was thinking of when I wrote that earlier comment at the Penguin.
Tuerqas. Let me rephrase the question. Are there any GUN policies that you would support.
If people support more mental health checks, maybe they would support having to go thru a psych eval before owning a gun? My guess is they would not.
The main crux between the 2 camps is the term “infringe”. IMO, no one is infringing on your right to own a weapon when they make it more difficult or add waiting times to purchase them. “Infringe” isn’t an absolute term. Right now in WI it is illegal for a felon to possess a firearm. I don’t see anything in the 2nd amendment about that, so by many people definitions, we are “infringing” the 2nd amendment on that and should allow felons to own firearms. Yet, no one seems to be fighting for that?
Actually, JonnyV, you said a mouthful; you are–indeed–clueless on the question AND on the answer.
Good luck with that.
There already exists a process for amending the Constitution of the United States. Why not use it? That was a rhetorical question because we all know why it has not and will likely never be attempted. Repealing 2A would require 66% support of both chambers of Congress and ratification by 75% of the states, which is not happening. The federal government does not enjoy that much of the people’s trust. So at least for now politicians in both parties will just keep circumventing the Constitution, ignoring the will of the people, and further justifying the framers’ initial wisdom and foresight.
>IMO, no one is infringing on your right to own a weapon when they make it more difficult or add waiting times to purchase them
Would you say the same about requiring a photo ID for voting? Or not allowing general voting by mail? Or purging voter rolls? I bet I know the answer to those.
>Hat tip to Jason, he was specifically one of the ‘we’ I was thinking of when I wrote that earlier comment at the Penguin.
You’re again wasting your time… the fool has run off and won’t look back. He thinks he wriggled out of the uncomfortable position he staked by niggling your use of pronouns. He’s the one who asked for your opinion, and then did not address any of the content or ideology of it.
Jason, that is the exact point I have brought up that people seem to want to ignore here. They don’t want to hold the same level of consistency for voting and 2A. They think purchasing a gun should be quick and easy with no restrictions, while voting should be painful and scrutinized. I am not opposed to showing some sort of id to vote. I also think day-of registration should be allowed everywhere as well as mail in voting. I also don’t have an issue purging voter rolls. We should send out a letter in early Sept stating that if you do not vote in the next upcoming election, you will be purged from the voter rolls after the next Nov election. And having this done after every presidential election. But, every state that purges should have a day of voting registration option.
But honestly, we really DONT need to purge voter rolls anymore. Using the National Change of Address database, and data from the Electronic Reg Info Center. As well as tax records that the state has access to. You should be able to keep a pretty up to date voter roll.
Merlin, no one here is talking about repealing or amending the 2A. You don’t need to do that for any of the options that have been presented.
Dad29, that is fine if you don’t have logical answers to my questions. You can write them off and walk away.
>They think purchasing a gun should be quick and easy with no restrictions, while voting should be painful and scrutinized.
Who is “they” in your absurd statement?
>But, every state that purges should have a day of voting registration option
Is there one that doesn’t? Or if not, that allows for a provisional ballot?
>You should be able to keep a pretty up to date voter roll.
And yet WI doesn’t, and the WEC has repeatedly violated the WI law on purging the rolls… even after performing the “send out a letter” process that you mentioned.
>Merlin, no one here is talking about repealing or amending the 2A. You don’t need to do that for any of the options that have been presented.
You are completely correct. What you prefer to talk about is circumvention of the Constitution by statute, judicial edict, or administrative regulation because the achievable near-term threshold is so very much lower. What you’re trying to determine is just how much infringement will be tolerated before its constitutionality is challenged and the public gets whipsawed yet again by faulty process. The constitutionality of infringements will be challenged every time. Every single time. Half-assing your way around 2A leaves outcomes entirely in the hands of politicians or judges; some of the least trustworthy people in the country.
I’m suggesting you might have a better quasi-permanent outcome if average American Joe and Jane get to make the decision.
>Half-assing your way around 2A leaves outcomes entirely in the hands of politicians or judges; some of the least trustworthy people in the country.
You mean like the esteemed Rep. Don Beyer of Virginia?
https://www.businessinsider.com/democrat-ar-15-rifles-tax-congress-gun-control-biden-administration-2022-6
>The main crux between the 2 camps is the term “infringe”. IMO, no one is infringing on your right to own a weapon when they make it more difficult or add waiting times to purchase them. “Infringe” isn’t an absolute term. Right now in WI it is illegal for a felon to possess a firearm. I don’t see anything in the 2nd amendment about that, so by many people definitions, we are “infringing” the 2nd amendment on that and should allow felons to own firearms. Yet, no one seems to be fighting for that?
This has been pretty much answered, I don’t have much to add. My answer would have been closest to Merlin’s. When voting was first implemented you had to own land to vote. Since then it has just become easier and easier. I am a fan of having reasonable rules to be able to vote or buy guns. The simpler it is to vote the more simpletons that vote…
I would not agree to a psych eval to vote either, and that is also not being discussed.
So many tools can be used to kill, guns are just the easiest. If you want to start talking about guns and about how bad murder is, why do liberals insist on letting murderers out ASAP? Start marrying penalties with gun laws and you might find a few more interested conservatives.
I am an ‘extremist’ in my beliefs that constitutional rights need to be taken away at the constitutional level, but I would feel a lot easier about adding limits to buying a gun if the murderers actually stayed in jail or were executed in a timely manner when the death penalty has been invoked.
>I’m suggesting you might have a better quasi-permanent outcome if average American Joe and Jane get to make the decision.
Oh, yeah, he knows that won’t get him what he wants, so there’s no point in even attempting it. If the entire country were given a vote, it would not result in the additional infringements that JV wants.
>I would not agree to a psych eval to vote either, and that is also not being discussed.
Hell, I backed out of a job offer when they asked to do a personality profile. I’m sure that’s not equivalent to a “psych eval” – whatever that really means to JV. I passed on that career and salary because in my opinion any company that includes one as part of the interview / hiring process is shortsighted and stupid. It tells me they are run by a nut job or career HR folks.
Merlin, I would love it if we could make some of these decisions on a nationally voted level. But that isn’t how our system works as you know. Instead we have elected “leaders” making them. Manchin is talking about an age restriction on AR-15 style weapons. And we have seen that get knocked down in the courts. I don’t know what (if anything) will get handled in Washington in the next 2 weeks. We know that restricting specific weapons IS constitutional, but the age restriction (which I would support) may not be.
Jason… “they”. Many people on this board have shown support for restricting voting. such as limiting times for early voting, limiting voting locations, and trying to implement stricter voting registration laws. FYI: WI did just purge their records last year. And WI is part of the ERIC program since 2016. They were not legally able to purge some records because they DIDNT give enough information on the mail sent out. But those records were purged last year if I remember.
>FYI: WI did just purge their records last year.
If they really did it and did it honestly I expect a red revolution at the ballot box next election.
>Merlin, I would love it if we could make some of these decisions on a nationally voted level. But that isn’t how our system works as you know.
Our system doesn’t work that way because we’ve allowed it to not work that way. We’ve allowed our elected representatives to evade their responsibility of representing the will of their constituents in favor of a politically weaponized judiciary. Now that the radical left cannot advance their agenda either legislatively or judicially, we’re seeing their utter disdain for both processes and a preference for tyranny of opportunity that fails at every turn.
Asking people to accept a dilution of constitutionally given rights by means other than the constitutional amendment process is going to be a tough sell. Short-term gains will be made only to be lost down the road.
>Jason… “they”. Many people on this board have shown support for restricting voting. such as limiting times for early voting, limiting voting locations, and trying to implement stricter voting registration laws.
That’s a far cry from what you said though… “They think purchasing a gun should be quick and easy with no restrictions, while voting should be painful and scrutinized. ” Grow up.
> FYI: WI did just purge their records last year. And WI is part of the ERIC program since 2016. They were not legally able to purge some records because they DIDNT give enough information on the mail sent out. But those records were purged last year if I remember.
Only after the 2020 election, only after violating state law, and only after being sued. Big deal. FYI, WI allows same day registration and also provisional ballots… both of which sort of take away from your flashy “voting should be painful and scrutinized” bullshit.
>Legalized fentanyl. Who’da Thunk?
If cocaine and heroin were re-legalized, then the fentanyl problem would all but go away….much like how the problems with “bathtub gin” pretty much disappeared after booze was re-legalized.
Unfortunately, if there is one thing that both the Democratics & Republicrats agree on is that the War on Drugs is a good thing, so major changes on that front will be a tough row to hoe.
>What assumptions are you talking about?
You assumed I am a “liberal” and you assumed I would call you a ‘racist” in response to whatever it was that you said.
>“Me talking about it is a waste of time if libs won’t respond…”
Earlier you flat-out stated you can’t talk about it – that is what I was calling out as bullshit. The way you keep moving the goal posts indicates that you also know your earlier statement was simply silly hyperbole.
>As far as crying bullshit, I really could not give a f$%k what your opinion is
Heh. And yet here you are, pounding away on the keyboards & writing multi-paragraphs with the sole purpose of trying to sway my opinion.
And if you don’t like my opinion on that, then you’re really gonna hate how I feel about grown-ass adults who are too much of a wimpy coward to actually type out the word “fuck” when they are (trying to) cuss someone out.
>I apologize for that, it was my opinion.
Thanks for that. I try to deal with individual people as an individual person, rather than instantly lump them into some sort of group…unless, of course, they are representing a group.
All that aside, your sense of entitlement is crazy-weird. You’re upset that “liberals” won’t bake your cake…err, I mean have a convo with you. And like it was said earlier, given your hostile behavior & blatant prejudices it’s no surprise you have difficulty trying to have a reasonable convo with others. (Like the ol’ saying says – if you keep bumping into assholes all day long, then maybe you’re the asshole). Do you really see nothing rude/hostile in the way you are addressing me? ’cause if you behave as such while away from the keyboard, then it makes sense why folks shy away from talking with you…especially when it is about a difference of opinion.
However, it seems that it is very-VERY important for you to have this discussion with someone….so even tho I ain’t a “liberal” I will be your huckleberry. Tell me again what you wanted to say about The Blacks that you “can’t talk about” and I’ll talk with you about it…at least for a lil’ bit.
Awww poor pengie feels he was attacked by the rude and hostile T.
He wants us to forget how rude and hostile this initial exchange was…
>Dad: What lefties don’t seem to comprehend is the fact that criminals and psychos don’t feel compelled to follow any laws. None. More laws, rules, and regulations will no more curb their behavior than what is already on the books.
>Pengie: With that in mind, do you beleive we should live in a society with no actual “laws” what-so-ever? After all, you seem to be saying they do no good at all & passing&enforcing ’em are just a waste of time&energy. Please clarify…thanks.
No that’s not rude or childish in any way. Or was it silly hyperbole? Either way, you’re a cunt.
>What lefties don’t seem to comprehend is the fact that criminals and psychos don’t feel compelled to follow any laws. None.
>> was it silly hyperbole?
*shrugs shoulders*
>Heh. And yet here you are, pounding away on the keyboards & writing multi-paragraphs with the sole purpose of trying to sway my opinion.
Nope, you were still not willing to talk so how could I even try to sway you? And since you don’t seem to know what I said earlier, I really don’t understand your attacking, sidestepping behavior on my initial comments. I was addressing a liberal and you stepped in, with denial commentary rather than responding to the comment. If you would like to be recognized as non-liberal you should really state your thoughts rather than step into a liberal’s shoes and use shut down contemptuous commentary that was aimed at liberals, not you. For example, here is our first exchange:
>>We can’t talk about the uncontrolled black on black crime, the ‘jobless’ blacks really just employed in illegal activities, the silence of the black neighborhoods due first to fear of reprisal from the criminals and second to the indoctrination to never trust the police, etc.
>You constantly whine about the things “we can’t talk about”, and yet here you are talking about those exact things.
No addressing the subject (just a dismissive comment on how I am talking about ‘something’.) And specifically I was speaking about how the news isn’t addressing it, not conservative blogs which you intentionally or unintentionally misconstrued to mean anywhere. Everything is addressed on blogs somewhere, just never constructive conversations between libs and cons anymore. If you read back in my commentary I think I made it pretty obvious with my examples…which apparently you never read as you don’t seem to know the content. I did not call you a liberal, you answered a comment aimed at MHMaley and later JonnyV in a very liberal fashion, so I responded to you as such.
My original example from above:
>>So anyone starts a conversation about black crime on a local news talk show, where does it go? (Hint: Racism, hate speech, the disadvantages of inner city residents, police brutality, etc) If liberals were seriously interested in solving minority problems they would talk about such things. Instead, you only find it on a conservative blog, because being stamped “racist” is a pretty nasty label in the US today once social media takes it up.
I stated you only find it on conservative blogs right there and you tried to redirect it to me not being able to talk about it at all. You made comments based on false assumptions despite my commentary right on the screen. As proven by your next comment at me right AFTER I stated the above:
>That aside, you previously said you “can’t” talk about those issues&topics, as if you would be punished for doing so. Now you are saying that actually it does get talked about but it just doesn’t always go the way you want it to go.
Two totally different things – won’t dispute the latter, but am calling out the former as absolute bullshit.
Then followed it up with:
>Earlier you flat-out stated you can’t talk about it – that is what I was calling out as bullshit.
Um, no…your statements were the absolute bullshit part. I said right above that one could not talk about it except on conservative blogs, so your words were all false misdirections. Perhaps because you are not a liberal? Maybe you just step in and pretend to be one sometimes? What you implied above was basically that a con and lib COULD talk about black on black crime on a local news panel without the con getting shut down and made to look like a racist. We can disagree on that, but I watch several of those weekend news forums quite often and I see the few real conservatives being shut down from any talk concerning black people in general if they are invited on a panel with black related topics at all.
So, did I assume you at least have some liberal beliefs. Well, you stepped into MHMaley’s shoes and did not discuss my comment, you attacked it in segues just like a lib, so yes I still do think you have at least some lib beliefs, so do I. And you did indeed say I was prejudiced rather than answer the commentary, so that was not a false assumption it was a fair one, later proven to be true.
>And if you don’t like my opinion on that, then you’re really gonna hate how I feel about grown-ass adults who are too much of a wimpy coward to actually type out the word “fuck” when they are (trying to) cuss someone out.
You still haven’t shown me a reason to give a f$%k about your opinion…If you do, maybe I’ll fucking care enough to write fuck, but I doubt it at this point.
>All that aside, your sense of entitlement is crazy-weird. You’re upset that “liberals” won’t bake your cake…err, I mean have a convo with you. And like it was said earlier, given your hostile behavior & blatant prejudices it’s no surprise you have difficulty trying to have a reasonable convo with others.
Entitlement? Maybe you should look up what that word means. And again with calling me prejudiced (synonym for racist, Penguin). Can you see how your continued insults and topic avoidance might make me (and others here) think YOU are indeed the asshole with at least some liberal beliefs (I have noticed that I have had several comments in my defense and you have not)? If you would indeed like to be my ‘lib’ huckleberry. Pick some comments above I made above and discuss them by all means (and please point out my prejudices), but if you aren’t one it will not change the fact that a LIB will not engage will it? I was not hostile until you made our exchanges hostile. Years ago I had conversations on this very topic on this blog with liberals that were both civil and engaging.
I am still saying that today honest productive public (at any level) conversations between libs and cons are virtually non-existent. And since you say you are not a lib, further conversation under that aegis between us on this topic is bootless, unless you first agree that you have some liberal tendencies in this area. It does not mean we can’t talk con to con, I just feel the pronoun troubles and false statements bullshit you have been spewing to date would need to end. Address the meaning of the commentary huckster (short for huckleberry…get it? Heh).
you don’t have logical answers to my questions
You make assertions which have no credibility.
Let’s start here: how did the universe come to be?
If they really did it and did it honestly I expect a red revolution at the ballot box next election.
Hopeless optimist you are. The cheat is very simple. They use REGISTERED voters’ names–all cleared by Election Commission–and they ask for mail ballots. Then they go to the home(s) of the voters, direct them ‘how to fill this out’ and drop them into the drop-box. OR–and this works just as well–they fill out the ballots themselves after picking them up at voters’ homes, then go to the drop-box.
By the way, the State Elections Commission is NOT responsible for purging the roster. LOCAL clerks are. You know, the ones in Racine, Green Bay, Milwaukee, Kenosha, and Madison.
Comforting, ain’a?
>Nope, you were still not willing to talk so how could I even try to sway you?
You say I’m not willing to talk, yet here I am—talking with you.
*shrugs shoulders*
Again – it appears that folks…all across the political spectrum…is willing to talk with you, but you just don’t like the way the convo goes.
>If you would like to be recognized as non-liberal you should really state your thoughts
So you pre-judge everyone to be a liberal unless they say otherwise? There is a word for folks like that…
>I stated you only find it on conservative blogs right there
Yes, after being called out on your falsehood you then later moved the goal posts to include that qualifier. Again, I am only disputing your original comment…not what you changed it to afterwards.
>So, did I assume you at least have some liberal beliefs.
Earlier you said you made no assumptions about me, but now you say you did? Good job- that’s progress.
>just like a lib
There is more of that ugly prejudicism we’ve been talking about.
>You still haven’t shown me a reason to give a f$%k about your opinion
Heh. And yet here you are, desperately trying to sway an opinion that you claim you don’t give any fucks about.
>Entitlement? Maybe you should look up what that word means
It applies in this situation. You’re mad&angry because Those People don’t want to talk with you and you beleive that they owe you their time&energy simply because of your desires&wants to have a conversation.
They don’t wanna bake your cake (and you’re not even offering to pay ’em for it! You want it for free) and that makes you mad. How is that not considered a “sense of entitlement”?
>prejudiced (synonym for racist
Maybe you should look up what that word means, because “race” is not the only thing a person can be prejudice about.
But the fact that you truly beleive as such speaks volumes and explains much.
>I have noticed that I have had several comments in my defense
Yeah, I noticed that one dude is WhiteKnighting you pretty hard….but seeing how you beleive that “continued insults and topic avoidance” is a liberal trait, how does it make you feel to know that only one defending you is a huge fucking liberal?
>Pick some comments above I made above
I have been doing exactly that….quoting your comments and talking about ’em.
All that aside, your obsession in labeling people is most likely a huge factor in why you find it difficult for folks to wanna talk with you. Your prejudiced outlook is putting off bad vibes & comes across as extremely ignorant, and thus makes it hard to take anything else you say seriously.
Try looking at individual people as individual people, rather than simply lumping everyone into only one of two groups (libs or cons), and you may find greater success in having a reasonable discussion with others.
We’ve allowed our elected representatives to evade their responsibility of representing the will of their constituents in favor of a politically weaponized judiciary.
Or in the alternative, a politically weaponized regulatory agency.
If cocaine and heroin were re-legalized, then the fentanyl problem would all but go away….much like how the problems with “bathtub gin” pretty much disappeared after booze was re-legalized.
Oh, sure!! That explains why coke and horse are now cut with fentanyl. /sarc.
And there IS a difference between addictive drugs and booze, you know. Or don’t you?
Sure is looking like jiffy has found his way back…
>That explains why coke and horse are now cut with fentanyl.
Well, folks who know the history of Prohibition (both past & present) would be able to pic-up the connection pretty quickly. Fentanyl is used to cut cocaine & heroin for the same reason denatured alcohol was used to cut bathtub gin.
Perhaps this link will help shed some light on the issue for you: https://www.history.com/news/10-things-you-should-know-about-prohibition#:~:text=Enterprising%20bootleggers%20produced%20millions%20of,struck%20blind%20or%20even%20poisoned.
>there IS a difference between addictive drugs and booze
Are you saying booze is not addictive? Or you saying it ain’t a drug? Or you saying it is neither? Please clarify…thanks.
>You say I’m not willing to talk, yet here I am—talking with you.
>Again – it appears that folks…all across the political spectrum…is willing to talk with you, but you just don’t like the way the convo goes.
>So you pre-judge everyone to be a liberal unless they say otherwise? There is a word for folks like that…
Ah, I see now, again my apologies. You are neither con nor lib, you are too simple to grasp even simple concepts. Having ‘conversations’ about a subject is quite different than going back and forth on how you won’t address the topic to me, but any back and forth at all is a ‘conversation’ to you. *Face palm*
Yeah, yeah, I know…more labeling.
Yes, it’s not a drug. And it is not addictive.
Have you read anything besides Libertarian claptrap? Or do you just act that way?
jiffy has found his way back
Nah. Jiffy actually asked intelligent questions now and then and didn’t have an inferiority complex that he covered with sophomoric crap.
Of course, anyone with wit would understand the implicit question I asked: why is legalizing drugs going to make fentanyl disappear?
The half-wit smirks about ‘history’, doesn’t realize that alcohol is NOT addictive, nor a drug, and evades the question. Heroin and coke are not cut with fentanyl to make them cheaper, just as denatured alcohol was not used to make bathtub gin cheaper.
They were both used to make the concoction stronger. So legalizing narcotics will not make fentanyl disappear. If anything, its use will grow.
>They were both used to make the concoction stronger. So legalizing narcotics will not make fentanyl disappear. If anything, its use will grow.
And we’ll have the heroin and cocaine blight on the inner cities that we had in through the 60’s. For someone who smirks about history, he sure does ignore aspects of if when it doesn’t support his “thoughts” – also reinforcing the “half-wit” assumption by a few of us.
>You are neither con nor lib, you are too simple to grasp even simple concepts
Interesting how you accuse me of being “simple”, yet you are unable to grok the basic idea that some (many?) folks simply don’t fit into the labels that you try to slap on them.
>Yeah, yeah, I know…more labeling
Recognizing you have a problem is the first step towards recovery. Kudos to you for doing so.
>The half-wit
It has been said around these parts that “continued insults” is a liberal trait.
Big gov’t oversight, especially in regards to how adults choose to pursue their own happiness, is also a liberal trait.
*shrugs shoulders*
>alcohol is NOT addictive, nor a drug,
Interesting & unique viewpoint, thanks for sharing.
With that in mind, are you of the opinion that there is no such thing as an “alcohol overdose”? Am also curious to know if you beleive getting “buzzed” and/or “drunk” is a real&actual thing that happens from drinking or is it your opinion it actually has no real effect on people? Please clarify…thanks.
>Heroin and coke are not cut with fentanyl to make them cheaper
Do you know what, in this context, the phrase “stepped on” means? And do you know why dealers will so such a thing?
Fentanyl is cheaper to manufacture than either of those substances, and it hits harder than the baby laxatives or vitamins that dealers would traditionally use to cut their product with.
“Drug traffickers often mix fentanyl into other drugs because it is cheap to manufacture”
https://www.colorado.edu/health/fentanyl
“This is because fentanyl can produce a potent high in small quantities, meaning that it is a relatively cheap additive.”
https://www.webmd.com/connect-to-care/addiction-treatment-recovery/cocaine-and-fentanyl-facts
“Some drug dealers are mixing fentanyl with other drugs, such as heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine,
and MDMA. This is because it takes very little to produce a high with fentanyl, making it a cheaper
option.”
https://nida.nih.gov/download/20630/fentanyl-drugfacts.pdf?v=7463664b4c495258862b99a803eb524d
>So legalizing narcotics will not make fentanyl disappear. If anything, its use will grow.
If that is true, then it stands to reason that the booze being sold in the stores today should contain more denatured alcohol than the booze that was sold during Prohibition….yet that ain’t the case at all.
*shrug shoulders*
>If that is true, then it stands to reason that the booze being sold in the stores today should contain more denatured alcohol than the booze that was sold during Prohibition….yet that ain’t the case at all.
See, you have serious logic problems. It makes logical (or any other kind of) sense to you that when alcohol is legal and regulated companies would make and sell more bad tasting poisonous alcohol for human consumption than when many mom and pops had a still in the back and illegally sold it?
No, that does NOT stand to reason. It has no resemblance to reason whatsoever.
>No, that does NOT stand to reason. It has no resemblance to reason whatsoever.
We now see that Half-Wit was overly generous.
With that in mind, are you of the opinion that there is no such thing as an “alcohol overdose”? Am also curious to know if you beleive getting “buzzed” and/or “drunk” is a real&actual thing that happens from drinking or is it your opinion it actually has no real effect on people?
And this is germane to “addictive” exactly……….how?
Last week you turned 19 and became a Libertarian because free sex or something. Maybe you should spend some time maturing. Just sayin’.
>See, you have serious logic problems.
Actually, you have a serious seeing problem. Please go back and re-read the first four words of my statement you quoted and the last seven words as well….’cause you appeared to have missed ’em the first time and they are an essential part of what was said.
>No, that does NOT stand to reason. It has no resemblance to reason whatsoever.
On this, we agree.
The opinion I was responding to (that if cocaine was legal®ulated then companies would cut it with nasty adulterants like fentanyl even more so than when dealers were selling it on the streets) is absolutely illogical, and I appreciate the way you pushed back on that idea. You said it a lot better than I did….thanks.
>And this is germane to “addictive” exactly……….how?
I didn’t say it was. Tho…now that you mention that again it does raise a few questions:
If booze isn’t addictive then does that mean treatment centers for alcoholism are all just scams? Is AA actually just a social club for people who like cheap donuts? How do you explain “the shakes” and other withdrawal symptoms some drunks go through…are they just faking it for the attention?
Those other questions I asked of you are germane to your claim that liquor isn’t a drug.
>Last week you turned 19 and became a Libertarian
heh
Knowing that you beleive as such helps me better understand some of the other opinions you also hold to be true….you’re simply making it all up as you go.
>Actually, you have a serious seeing problem. Please go back and re-read the first four words of my statement you quoted and the last seven words as well….’cause you appeared to have missed ’em the first time and they are an essential part of what was said.
Nope, I didn’t miss it, I forgot what fentanyl was. I agree with Penguin to an extent. If drugs that now commonly contain fentanyl were legalized and Fentanyl was regulated as illegal in the making, I agree that Fentanyl might be used much less to make them. What I don’t know is:
Penguin assumption 1) If it would be regulated out. Both heroin and fentanyl separately are such a common road to death, legalizing heroin to current strengths and leaving fentanyl illegal is an unlikely scenario, imo.
Penguin assumption 2) If makers would even stop using it. It is a big ‘if’, though plausibly sound. A legalized form of any drug currently using Fentanyl in its making would lose a lot of street value if made legal. The current illegal makers could still charge current street values for much ‘stronger’ drugs with Fentanyl and they already have the underground selling network established. Denatured alcohol did not increase highs or desire for more alcohol, fentanyl does increase desire and addiction levels in the drugs it is used in. Your comparison weakens there, but is not illogical.
>The opinion I was responding to (that if cocaine was legal®ulated then companies would cut it with nasty adulterants like fentanyl even more so than when dealers were selling it on the streets) is absolutely illogical, and I appreciate the way you pushed back on that idea. You said it a lot better than I did….thanks.
I agree with that:)!
I still also think some of your comparisons are more sketchy or include even more assumptions. For example:
>>What lefties don’t seem to comprehend is the fact that criminals and psychos don’t feel compelled to follow any laws. None. More laws, rules, and regulations will no more curb their behavior than what is already on the books.
>With that in mind, do you beleive we should live in a society with no actual “laws” what-so-ever? After all, you seem to be saying they do no good at all & passing&enforcing ’em are just a waste of time&energy. Please clarify…thanks.
If you believe that Merlin ‘seemed’ to be saying what you are calling a fair assumption, you would not have used the word seemed. There are people who don’t care about laws, there are people who care about their idea of ‘good’ and there is a huge group in between that believe in following the laws because they don’t like the penalties if caught (likely the largest of the 3). Merlin was talking ONLY about the first group. Your comparison is ignoring the very large group not willing to chance facing penalties, so the statement about making and enforcing laws being a waste of time and energy is a crock comparison because it included everyone, not just criminals.
Laws help define right and wrong. A world where no right and wrong are defined would be a much different world. Assuming you agree that a world without laws would be much different (and worse) even though there are currently people unwilling to follow the laws in the world, your comparison is disingenuous. Now if you believe that there would be no more activities we currently define as crime without laws than with laws, then your comparison is fair. So, are you a full-on anarchist (as I wouldn’t want to label)? If you were, your statement could be deemed logically sound. If not, I still cry bullshit.
criminals and psychos don’t feel compelled to follow any laws. None. More laws, rules, and regulations will no more curb their behavior than what is already on the books.
Yes, indeed. Colorado legalized marijuana and found that its tax-revenue estimates were FAR too rosy, as the drug dealers (the not-licensed ones) dropped their prices and are absolutely smoking (heh) the legit stores. Another Penguin stupidity…..
As to alcohol: it is NOT addictive, although there are addictive persons; whether to alcohol, heroin, sex….pick your vice. I know that’s hard to grasp for the simple-minded Libertarian, but try it. It works.