In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Using the Drug War as an excuse to take guns?
Defender
Member Posts: 1,772 ✭✭✭✭✭
Some drugs and chemicals are abused and their abusers are blight on any country but controlling them is just not possible even in the harshest of all totalitarian societies, our prisons.
The results of drug-law enforcement in our formally free society have been nothing short of catastrophic. I can say that 80% of all shootings, murders, robberies, burglaries, forgeries, thefts and assaults not related to drugs, but rather DRUG ENFORCEMENT.
Murders as listed in the FBI Uniform Crime Reports include all police and justifiable shootings by citizens in their mix. Then there are the gang crimes over their market share, the crimes committed by addicts seeking cash for their habbit and of course the innocents killed or maimed by mistake.
People who are in the drug/drug enforcement business or the addicted masses commit huge amounts violent acts every day.
I say END THE DRUG WAR. We cam put all the drug lords and drug czars out of business in a single day and same time save 200 Billion tax dollars a year in the process.
What do we do with the addicted slobs in our country? We know if we legalize drugs that we will not begin jabbing ourselves, and each other with hypodermic needles just because it's legal. The same problem people will continue to have the same problems.
I suggest that we take a small portion of the money and use it to treat only the addicted that seek treatment for free. These folks seeking help are more likely to benefit from treatment then the bums sent by court order.
The first year after legalization we can realistically expect to see our crime rate by 80%. With the lower rate of homicide we can expect to take nearly all of the gun-hater's argument away.
Why do we need to continue funding this failed war?
Defender
Private investigator licensed in AZ & CA that specializes in self defense cases.
The results of drug-law enforcement in our formally free society have been nothing short of catastrophic. I can say that 80% of all shootings, murders, robberies, burglaries, forgeries, thefts and assaults not related to drugs, but rather DRUG ENFORCEMENT.
Murders as listed in the FBI Uniform Crime Reports include all police and justifiable shootings by citizens in their mix. Then there are the gang crimes over their market share, the crimes committed by addicts seeking cash for their habbit and of course the innocents killed or maimed by mistake.
People who are in the drug/drug enforcement business or the addicted masses commit huge amounts violent acts every day.
I say END THE DRUG WAR. We cam put all the drug lords and drug czars out of business in a single day and same time save 200 Billion tax dollars a year in the process.
What do we do with the addicted slobs in our country? We know if we legalize drugs that we will not begin jabbing ourselves, and each other with hypodermic needles just because it's legal. The same problem people will continue to have the same problems.
I suggest that we take a small portion of the money and use it to treat only the addicted that seek treatment for free. These folks seeking help are more likely to benefit from treatment then the bums sent by court order.
The first year after legalization we can realistically expect to see our crime rate by 80%. With the lower rate of homicide we can expect to take nearly all of the gun-hater's argument away.
Why do we need to continue funding this failed war?
Defender
Private investigator licensed in AZ & CA that specializes in self defense cases.
Comments
However, as I have become more staunchly pro-2nd Amend., I have drawn a lot of parallels to the RTKBA debate and the drug legalization debate. I have to say that SOME arguements for drug legalization almost identically parallel the pro-RTKBA arguement.
Unfortunately, these two debates are not a two-way street. If pro-2A groups also begin supporting pro-drug legalization, expecting reciprocity, then they will be sorely mistaken. The Left-Wing WANTS you to be addicted to drugs so that they can take your guns away MORE EASILY. That is why they are pro-drug and anti-gun.
I have a few differences of opinion on some of your assessments, Defender:
quote:I say END THE DRUG WAR. We cam put all the drug lords and drug czars out of business in a single day and same time save 200 Billion tax dollars a year in the process.
We may put the drug lords temporarily out of business, but that same day we will be handing the corporate drug industry a whole new arsenal of weapons to mass market to our society. You think Big Tobacco is powerful, wait till you see Big Marijuana, or Big Heroin. That 200 billion will easily be swallowed by this newly regulated industry, probably shifting from the DEA to the FDA. The Feds will tax the hell out of this new legal commodity, which will necessitate a Black Market, thus putting the drug lords back in business.
quote:What do we do with the addicted slobs in our country? We know if we legalize drugs that we will not begin jabbing ourselves, and each other with hypodermic needles just because it's legal. The same problem people will continue to have the same problems.
Sure, I won't get hooked on drugs either way, but my insurance premiums will still continue to skyrocket. I would love to think that any druggie who gets addicted or ODs will be left in the gutter to die by his own stupidity. But the Bleeding Hearts won't let it happen. They will drag the druggies into the county hospitals, set up worthless "rehabilitation programs", and then give the druggies government subsidized drugs as "treatment". All of this coming out of my backpocket.
quote:The first year after legalization we can realistically expect to see our crime rate by 80%. With the lower rate of homicide we can expect to take nearly all of the gun-hater's argument away.
I just don't see it. If a junkie needs a hit, it still costs the same if he buys it from the pusher on the corner, or at the liquor store on the corner (probably more with gov't taxation and corporate overhead). If he is willing to commit a crime to buy illegal drugs, then why wouldn't he commit a crime to by legal drugs? Hey, that way he is only breaking one law instead of two. What a win for the druggies.
If we lived in a purely Libertarian society then I might go for drug legalization, but we don't.
JMHO,
WW
"...That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state."
-The Debates in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Virginia, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution. June 27, 1788.
Being in favor of drug legalization does not make anyone pro drug abuse. I hate street drugs, tobacco and alcohol too. I made hundreds of arrests back when I was a cop thinking I was on a mission from God.
The FDA should not be allowed to regulate drugs not prescribed or intended for other than a MEDICAL purpose. Taxes should not be levied on this garbage either or you turn the government into the largest dope peddler of all.
The street drugs cost no more than sugar, coffee or tea.
As for the addicted folks the only change to expect is that drugs will be cheap enough to make a whole laundry list if theft related crimes unnecessary. They will still be the same slobs they always were.
The government supported treatment centers could help only the folks that really want help. The treatment industry with their court ordered and taxpayer funded clients have become some of the wealthiest prostitutes around. The treatment folks LOVE the Drug War more than anyone.
We could empty the jails and prisons of the people sent there for possession, sale, manufacture and conspiracy. The violent folks and thieves can stay put. That's almost half of our prisoners. We could then afford to keep the rest behind bars forever.
WoundedWolf, in a way it's funny. You've described the same kind of scenarios of what "might happen" as the gun haters being asked to roll back stupid gun laws passed 35 years ago that accomplished nothing.
This idea is not new and has been pushed by political Conservatives like myself for years. One thing is for sure, our present efforts have failed and cost all of us more than we ever dreamed. There is no victory over the drug war in our future.
We must raise our children by example, not laws. Laws and government don't raise children properly, responsible parents do.
I will never send a child of mine to any school where they search students withhout warrants or probable cause or send in drug sniffing dogs. I will die in the streets killing government bureaucrats first.
Defender
Private investigator licensed in AZ & CA that specializes in self defense cases.
Pure and simple. They learned well the lessions taught by such as Hitler.
Tell enough lies..tell them often enough..from high places...and enough brain-dead followers will fall in line to assure sucess.
Freedom is messy. By the nature of it. Using drugs is an individual decision...just as is the decision,say..on My part..to terminate the life of someone zoned out on drugs and threatning me or mine. That is the way things OUGHT to work.
http://balder.prohosting.com/~adhpage/arc_pw/opiumeasy_cache.html
In my previous post I was basically trying to boil this issue down to these points:
1. The pro-gun movement will not find an ally in the pro-drug legalization movement.
2. The wholesale legalization of drugs WILL NOT put the Black Market out of business, the Federal government WILL want to regulate and tax it, and mega-corporations WILL seize this market and deceptively push it to whomever they can profit from (ala Joe Camel).
3. Our current society WILL NOT allow individual drug abusers to be responsible for their own actions, instead they will use public money to continue ineffective treatment programs that only perpetuate the abuse.
4. Insurance companies WILL continue to raise all of our health premiums to compensate for the junkies that refuse to kick the habit and incur medical bills, that they never intend to pay, from overdoses and drug-related health problems.
5. With the possible exception of those arrested for simple possession, the crime rate WILL NOT decrease. Criminal junkies WILL continue to be criminals and WILL lie, cheat, and steal to get their fix. Organized crime WILL still be involved in the drug trade, just as they are also involved in the alcohol and tobacco trades today.
These are merely my points of view. I'm not saying that legalization isn't something that could happen, I just think we should take a careful look at it before we tread down that path. And I don't think we should kid ourselves that it will be a magic bullet that will cure all of society's ills.
quote:WoundedWolf, in a way it's funny. You've described the same kind of scenarios of what "might happen" as the gun haters being asked to roll back stupid gun laws passed 35 years ago that accomplished nothing.
I don't disagree with that statement. I would say the difference is that some people promote scenarios that are way out there and merely a slippery-slope. But other scenarios are based in common sense and are probably valid. For example, an anti-gunner may say that the complete legalization of all firearms will not reduce the crime rate. I would tend to agree with that, as I don't think there would be any immediate drastic change in the crime rate either way. We may see a trend after 5 or 10 years. Same thing with drug legalization. For the first couple years we would probably see little change in the crime rate. We would probably only see a trend after 5 or 10 years, which is why I think we should be very careful how we proceed.
I think I am spent on this one for now, thanks for the mind expansion exercise (without the narcotics [8D]).
-WW
"...That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state."
-The Debates in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Virginia, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution. June 27, 1788.
The war on Drugs has been lost long ago. The War on the Rights of all Americans has been won. So far I count 2 for the bad guys and 0 for the good guys. I see no choice but to legalize drugs or expect a even more rotten police state in which to live. We've already given way too much of our freedom to control a bunch of drug addicts. The continued enforcement only increases profits for the dealers and loads of freeloading government contractors that finance the politicial campaigns of the people we want least holding offices.
Defender
Private investigator licensed in AZ & CA that specializes in self defense cases.
You're really advocating giving our government even more power than they have. We need to take back the power we've given them after Ruby Ridge and Waco.
Defender
Private investigator licensed in AZ & CA that specializes in self defense cases.
Prohibition failed. Gave rise to Al Capone, John Dillinger, etc.
Drug Prohibition failing. Don't know of anybody who wants drugs who doesn't have easy access to them. Gave rise to various Al Capone style gangsters.
Firearm Prohibition: Will Fail. Same as above.
Not only shold it be legal but decrimalized, for everyone not just medical!!!!!!!!!!!!
take away my guns, use knifes, take away my knifes, use rocks, take away rocks,i starve, sorry for u BRITS out there
%5Burl%3D%22http%3A%2F%2Fvirtual-gambling.win4max.com%22%5Dvirtual+gambling%0D%0A%5B%2Furl%5D+++%5Burl%3D%22http%3A%2F%2Flet-it-ride-online-poker-fun.4na.net%22%5Dlet-it-ride+online+poker+fun%0D%0A%5B%2Furl%5D+++%5Burl%3D%22http%3A%2F%2Fcard-games-poker.max-win.net%22%5Dcard-games+poker%0D%0A%5B%2Furl%5D+++
i think legalzation is good but keep coke and herion illegal and legalize weed cause lets see (Astradamn) seems to not have a problem with crime,
Have you ever been there? I have, and of the twenty or so cities I have been to in Europe, hands down the least safe was Amsterdam. I know the pro legalize crowd holds up Amsterdam as their MECCA, but if you go there, you will see it aint some Utopia. The place is LITTERED with crime. I was told that while in Amsterdam, not to leave valuables in my hotel room, and not to use credit cards, because Amsterdam has a very high rate of credit card abuse.
And just walking around, especially at night was very unsafe.
Incidentally, another place which has a very lax drug enforcement policy, is Oslo- I wasnt settled in Oslo for more than an hour, when some strung out junkie woman attacked my wife in the middle of the day, in the middle of the city. She wanted money, my wife ignored her, she wrapped her hands around my wifes throat-if that happend here, I would have shot her-of course, I wasnt allowed to be armed in Oslo. After I pushed the junky down 3x, she finally stayed down, took her shoe off and threw it at me- Ohhh yeah legalize drugs, and there will be less crime[:I][:I][:I]
"Waiting tables is what you know, making cheese is what I know-lets stick with what we know!"
-Jimmy the cheese man
Incorrect, but not solely. This is a no-win situation. If us gun owners had a choice that wasn't the frying pan or the fire, I'm sure we would bow out of both aspects. Simple fact... gun owners fall on all aspects of the drug use spectrum. If even a percentage of them understand that the "War on Drugs" specifically targets them, they will not side with the JBT's on that issue, regardless of right or wrong. Those like me know the War on Drugs is nothing more than a modern-day Prohibition, and simply stated, Police States REQUIRE an enemy, of some sort, whether it is drugs (any and all aspects), gun owners, terrorists, certain races, sexual orientations or deviants, political dissidents, or whatever, so the fact that this war is being lost only justifies the existence and more appropriations.
quote:2. The wholesale legalization of drugs WILL NOT put the Black Market out of business, the Federal government WILL want to regulate and tax it, and mega-corporations WILL seize this market and deceptively push it to whomever they can profit from (ala Joe Camel).
If it is done right, it will be. If the product is made to hold a smaller price tag, and isn't controlled excessively, it will. Realistically, WW is probably right, because everything Gov't touches, it *'s.
quote:3. Our current society WILL NOT allow individual drug abusers to be responsible for their own actions, instead they will use public money to continue ineffective treatment programs that only perpetuate the abuse.
Our society is not the problem. And hey, if they're stupid enough to sweep the problem under the rug and let their tax dollars be squandered in stupid fashion, they deserve it.
quote:4. Insurance companies WILL continue to raise all of our health premiums to compensate for the junkies that refuse to kick the habit and incur medical bills, that they never intend to pay, from overdoses and drug-related health problems.
I don't blame them one bit. Consider that one of the consequences of their actions. They can have their drugs, and EVERYTHING that comes with it. No free rides.
quote:5. With the possible exception of those arrested for simple possession, the crime rate WILL NOT decrease. Criminal junkies WILL continue to be criminals and WILL lie, cheat, and steal to get their fix. Organized crime WILL still be involved in the drug trade, just as they are also involved in the alcohol and tobacco trades today.
The only way to deal with crime is to eliminate if AFTER THE FACT. There is no other way. No proactive way exists, and will never exist. Once we stop fooling ourselves and deal with it, rather than brainstorm ways that do no good, the better. And I totally disagree with the "Organized Crime" aspect. You shut down one aspect of the Black Market, and organized crime will go elsewhere, where the field is more profitable. That has to be the goal at the onset, though.
Death to Tyrants!!!
Lev 26:14-39
Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.
Luke 22:36.
"Followers of Christ, be armed."
People that work for the government never get fired. so what would you do with the DEA people. They let just enough drug come in to keep there jobs.
Money is the answer, just take the money out of it . Let the DEA hand out free drugs to all of the people stupid enough to take it. By doing this evolution would take care of it . All the stupid people would over dose, the general population would become more intelligent and the DEA would fade away from lack of need for them.
The same would happen with the BATFE by repealing all of the gun laws.
As the people be come more intelligent there would be less of a need for government workers. For if not for government were would the incompetent work.
The less incompetent the people are the more need for big government .
The people need a police force to take care of crime so they don't have to.
The criminal commits a crime and the people call 911 then every cop in town shows up and puts up yellow tape and fills out the paper work. Maybe they will catch the criminal and maybe they won't.
If they do happen to catch the criminal the taxpayer foots the bill.
If the taxpayer takes out the criminal while he is on the job , no need for the system .
One of the biggest problems today are wimps being raised by single mothers with no real men in there lives.
Gun proof the kid not kid proof the gun.
Teach them (girls and boy) to shoot and walk tall.
Teach them to stand up for themselves fight back, not take any crap from the bullies .
Put an end to wellfare.
Take back America from the bureaucRATS.
[8D]
A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.
Make yourselves sheep, and the wolves will eat you.
On a Friday night around 11:30PM my employees picked up the company truck so they could go to her daughters soccer game out of town (Prescott, AZ). The truck had been in several different peoples possession that day and when they picked it up there were several items that did not belong to them in the truck (Blazer).
When they arrived in Prescott a two hour drive, it was around 4:00AM. They were a few hours early so they decided to head over to the soccer field and sleep until it was game time. As they arrived at the field they noticed a sign that read "Park Closed Between the Hours of 10:00PM and 7:00AM." Being the law abiding citizens that they are, they drove down the road to a very remote and isolated field. They pulled over and got into the back of the Blazer to catch a little sleep before their busy day.
It was around 6:00AM when they heard a rap on the window. As he awoke he opened his eyes to the bright glare of a flashlight. Then the voice said, "would you please step outside." He knew now that it was a cop. Oddly enough, the first words out of his mouth were not, "what are you folks doing out here this early in the morning?" No, his first words were "do you have any weapons in the truck?" Now to some this may seam a normal and sensible question to ask, however the officer had not even established the reason for tapping on their window yet he quizzed them about a gun. This becomes very relavent.
He said "yes, it's under my pillow." As the officer headed towards the tailgait the girl reached out and handed him the weapon, a nine millimeter. He placed the gun on the luggage rack a shone his flashlight towards the front of the vehicle. He then asked if it would be OK for him to search the vehicle. He was told "No" by both the occupants. He then proceeded to place the gentleman under arrest for carrying a concealed weapon, which by Arizona law, he was not.
They had taken all of the other peoples items left behind and placed them in the front seat while they slept. Since the cop had placed, we'll call him Jim, under arrest, he now had probable cause to search the vehicle within "wingspan." He immediately proceeded to the front seat of the Blazer, well out of Jim's reach or "wingspan." He asked the girl, lisa, if she had any ID. She said she didn't know where it was. After briefly looking she found her wallet under some bags in the back and gave the officer her ID. He asked her to stand at the rear of the SUV about 2 feet from the loaded 9mm. He obviously hadn't a care in the world about that gun. He reached into the car and came out with a purse. He then asked Lisa if it were hers. She said it was not, remember she got her ID out of a wallet in the back. She told the officer she did not carry a purse.
Whithin 1 minute the officer had reached into a side pocket of the purse and pulled out the drugs. To make this a little shorter, they were both arrested and placed in seperate squad cars. The charges were as such:
JIM
1. Possession of a dangerous drug- Class 4 felony
2. Possession of drug paraphernalia- Class 4 felony
3. Possession with intent to sell- Class 2 felony
4. Misconduct involving a weapon- Class 2 felony
Lisa
1. Possession of a dangerous drug- Class 4 felony
2. Possession of drug paraphernalia- Class 4 felony
3. Misconduct involving a weapon- Class 2 felony
The officer did not take the purse into States evidence even after he was told they had only been in possession of the "company truck" for about 6-7 hours. Two of which were driving to Prescott. Another hour while driving in Prescott and one hour sleeping. More than reasonable to believe they did not have time to go through all of those personal effects left behind by other employees. The cop forgot the gun and had to stop his car as they were leaving so that he could get out and retrieve the gun.
What is wrong with this picture?
________________________________________________________________
"Don't look back,Something might be gaining on you"-Satchel Paige
"Don't look back,Something might be gaining on you"-Satchel Paige