"It's proving that area's that don't have strict gun laws in the U.S. are supplying guns to criminals in area's of the U.S. that do."
So, what prevents another country without strict gun laws supplying guns to criminals? We can't even keep people, drugs, or other contraband out.
Guess what? Guns are being smuggled into Mexico and other countries from the U.S. not the other way around.
And you don't think that would change overnight if the US imposed very strict gun laws? I'd have figured "Just say no" would have taught you something.
Nope. Most guns come from the U.S.. Most drugs come from other countries like Mexico. Guns are smuggled out, drugs are smuggled in. Your scenario is a huge reach.
A life is not important except in the impact it has on other lives. – Jackie Robinson
quick story: they had soldiers guarding poppy fields in afghanistan. worst mission. ever.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
So then you are in favor of legalizing all types of drugs as well?
That depends, are you for legal importation of automatic firearms?
I think addictive drugs, cocaine, heroin, opiates, etc, should not be legal for transport across our country's borders.
No, it doesn't really depend on anything. Are you in favor of legalizing all types of drugs?
Are you saying that if we can grow it here and produce it here, that you think it should be legal for use here.. but that we should neither be able to import or export it?
Nope. Most guns come from the U.S.. Most drugs come from other countries like Mexico. Guns are smuggled out, drugs are smuggled in. Your scenario is a huge reach.
Under your premise about Chicago, you said that due to the restrictive gun laws in Chicago, people bring in guns from other areas of the US. Yes. It seems like you are pushing for Chicago's restrictive gun laws to be used everywhere, so people won't be able to get guns easier and bring them to Chicago. My point was, if you put the same restrictive laws everywhere, people will find another way to get guns. The drug cartels that currently bring in drugs will start running guns too. After that, only criminals will be able to get guns, or those people that can pay criminals to get guns. I don't see why that is so hard to grasp.
No, it doesn't really depend on anything. Are you in favor of legalizing all types of drugs?
Are you saying that if we can grow it here and produce it here, that you think it should be legal for use here.. but that we should neither be able to import or export it?
I can depend on anything I want it to. Since when did you become the royal grand inquisitor?
As for the drug issue, I already answered that. Guns are a tool that can be used for good or evil. Highly addictive drugs are little more than destructive, sometimes even when used in a medical setting. Last time I checked, guns are not addictive.
Not my daddy. Politicians are hired to vote the will of their constituents, not to play a father figure for the poor, ignorant masses.
We are supposed to be equal under the law, but we are not supposed to be equal in everything.
But the government isn't entirely composed of those who are elected. And why do you believe the minority is poor and ignorant? They definitely aren't the majority because otherwise they would just vote in their politicians, right?
Where do you get this 'minority/majority' crap from what I said? Politicians are supposed to enact the will of their constituents, not to protect us from ourselves. That should be rather easy to understand.
I read something in your post I must have inferred incorrectly then. I thought when you meant father figure for the poor/ignorant masses, you placed them at odds with the constituents.
Either way, if the constituents want minimum wage of $200/hr in their district, do you believe the politician has the legal duty to make that happen? What if the constituents want to ban black people from entering their township via any outlying roads?
I can think of a number of cases where the majority action was taken that we later realize was the wrong thing to do. The mark of a wise lawmaker is one who can balance their constituents wants from their needs. This mark is in very short supply in this era of governance. Part of the reason we vote in lawmakers in the first place is because most constituents aren't well versed enough in the actions of lawmaking to be effective. If all that was required of lawmaking was just polling the public and enacting whatever had a 51% majority, we wouldn't need congresspeople period.
“Majority rule only works if you're also considering individual rights. Because you can't have five wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for supper.”
Larry Flynt quote
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
there's guys...was a story a while back, that said he'd divorce his wife before he gave up his guns.
some vets can't function without weapons on them.
a gun can be addictive the same way people can get addicted to playing games like World of Warcraft.
Last edited by Swish; 07/31/1505:35 PM.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
just because YOU are fine, doesn't mean the next person is.
i tried cocaine. i didn't get addicted. does that mean cocaine isn't addictive?
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
the first step is admitting there's a massive problem with gun culture. some people are absolutely addicted.
Last edited by Swish; 07/31/1505:49 PM.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Nah, I don't think I "lost" the argument about guns being addictive in comparison to drugs.
However, if you seem to feel guns are physically addictive, that's your choice.
I respect you enough to not disclose our last phone conversation - but I would caution you. You DO seem to have an addiction to weed. That's just to me, based on your posts, and your frequency of use. And that comment is 100% based on what you've shared on this board.
Yet, you're not addicted? It "just works better than the pills"? PTSD can be a killer. And again, YOU have stated you have ptsd.
the same rationale and feelings of euphoria people have with guns is the same people can feel with drugs.
i could very well be addicted to weed. lot better than pills though.
so i'm not claiming any moral high ground here. but i provided proof and discussions from gun owners that you're statement that guns can't be addictive is well, wrong.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
I've never heard of a person having seizures due to "not having their gun". I've never heard of a person so addicted to a gun that they will rob, steal, or commit other crimes to get a gun.
I've never heard of "gun rehab".
Dude, you're barking up the wrong tree here. Guns are not addictive like drugs are. Just stop.
i provided links and a forum of actual gun owners saying they have a gun addiction.
we can debate this all day, but the proof day.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
You DO realize you links about "gun addiction" were just people saying they like guns? Don't you?
I didn't see anyone that was losing their job, or their home, or their family due to guns. You, yourself, have said you smoke pot in the morning, in the evening. In essence, you use "getting high" as a means to deal with life. That's pot. I didn't see anyone saying "I have to have a gun to deal with life". I haven't seen anyone say "I lost my job because of my 'addiction' to guns".
Dude, you like to get high. I get it. You use pot instead of prescribed meds. I get.
I like to shoot guns. I can easily do without. No problem. You try going 1 week without pot. Deal?
And don't blame it on PTSD. My wife has that - but she doesn't do drugs.
PTSD can be a bad thing - but I highly doubt your doc has prescribed pot as the answer. It may make you feel better, when you're high. But is it helping you in your life?
i've noticed that every time you get defensive you start trying to throw my PTSD in my face.
it's amusing. i make a audible chuckle reading your post. i know i put the information out on my own accord. that's because it doesn't bother me enough to get upset about it.
but maybe i should post your nasty PM's about me and my problems? dunno, not sure if i'm feeling petty today or not. gimme a few minutes.
you're the one looking foolish. sounding just like the guys who swear up and down they don't have a problem.
maybe you do, maybe you don't. i've gone months without weed. it's not hard. but maybe i'm still an addict? who knows? what i do know is you constantly bringing it up like a weapon doesn't hurt, it's just comical.
anyways, like i said i laid out my evidence. you're doing nothing but denying that yes, people can get addicted to guns, just like they can get addicted to playing MMO's(Massive multiplayer online), gambling, and a host of other things that AREN'T drugs.
you get that right? gambling and such isn't a drug, yet it's a real addiction.
lol....but anyway, carry on with your pop shots about my PTSD. i'll smoke a bowl and laugh at it like i always do.
Last edited by Swish; 07/31/1508:11 PM.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
You just said enough. Point proven. But if you DO want to get into the pm's, go ahead. I apologized. But, knowing what I know now - hey man, have at it if you wish.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
the forbes link i posted explains part of the thought process behind it.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”