Car Forum / Toyota / Toyota Cars / March 2009
{OT:} Fox ignores ATF data - 90% of Mexican cartel guns from the US
|
|
Thread rating:  |
edspyhill01 - 28 Mar 2009 13:40 GMT http://mediamatters.org/items/printable/200903270036
Ignoring ATF data, Fox's Bream advanced "gun advocates" claim that "vast majority" of Mexican cartel weapons not from US
Summary: Fox News' Trace Gallagher and Shannon Bream advanced the claim, touted by "gun advocates," that the "vast majority" of weapons used in Mexican drug cartels "are not coming from the United States." In fact, according to ATF's National Tracing Center, 90 percent of these weapons that could be traced originated from within the U.S.
On the March 27 edition of Fox News' The Live Desk, co-host Trace Gallagher stated that Attorney General Eric Holder "says" reinstituting the ban on assault weapons "would help in the battle with violence along the U.S.-Mexico border, but gun advocates say that's not right." Supreme Court correspondent Shannon Bream then asserted: "Absolutely. ... [T]hey say if you go to the border, if you talk to law enforcement agents who are there, working all along both sides of the border, and immigration officials as well, and ask them about this issue, they'll say the vast majority of guns, according to them, that are in Mexico being used in some of these drug cartels are not coming from the United States." At no point did Gallagher or Bream mention that statistics from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) contradict the anecdotal claim of these "gun advocates." ATF and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) stated in recent congressional testimony that "according to ATF's National Tracing Center, 90 percent of the weapons [in Mexico] that could be traced were determined to have originated from various sources within the U.S."
In a joint prepared statement to the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs, William Hoover, ATF assistant director for field operations, and Anthony P. Placido, DEA assistant administrator for intelligence, testified:
The southwest border is the principal arrival zone for most illicit drugs trafficked into the U.S., as well as the predominant staging area for the subsequent distribution of these drugs throughout the U.S. Guns are an integral part of these criminal enterprises; they are the "tools of the trade." Drug traffickers routinely use firearms against each other and have used these weapons against the Mexican military, law enforcement officials, and Mexican civilians. Because firearms are not readily available in Mexico, drug traffickers have aggressively turned to the U.S. as their primary source. Firearms are routinely being transported from the U.S. into Mexico in violation of both U.S. and Mexican law. In fact, according to ATF's National Tracing Center, 90 percent of the weapons that could be traced were determined to have originated from various sources within the U.S. One thing must remain clear in any discussion of violence in Mexico, or violence practiced by Mexican traffickers operating in the U.S.: drug gangs are inherently violent, and nowhere is this more true than in Mexico, where "Wild West"-style shootouts between the criminals and the cops, and elements of opposing trafficking groups are unfortunately considered normal.
From March 27 edition of Fox News' The Live Desk with Martha and Trace:
TRACE GALLAGHER (co-host): Well, in the meantime, Attorney General Eric Holder is battling for a gun fight, because the attorney general is reconsidering instituting a ban on assault weapons. Holder suggested bringing back the ban in response to the escalating drug violence in Mexico. He says it would decrease the flow of guns from the U.S. into Mexico.
But gun rights advocates say liberal Democrats are using the war next door to push for more restrictions on guns right here in the U.S. Shannon Bream is following this live from D.C. She's on RM-232.
And Shannon, the attorney general says the ban would help in the battle with violence along the U.S.-Mexico border, but gun advocates say that's not right.
BREAM: Absolutely. They think this is kind of a smokescreen, because they say if you go to the border, if you talk to law enforcement agents who are there, working all along both sides of the border, and immigration officials as well, and ask them about this issue, they'll say the vast majority of guns, according to them, that are in Mexico being used in some of these drug cartels are not coming from the United States. So these folks say the Second Amendment is now under attack by the attorney general.
They think he is trying to reinstate this ban on assault weapons as a way of, you know, getting gun control kind of maybe under the radar, because nobody looks at what's happening in Mexico and thinks that's a positive thing. It's obviously a very tragic situation. It gets people's attention. And so, you know, reinstating the ban in that arena makes it -- to a lot of people, it makes sense.
But folks are warning, if you care about your gun rights, you need to take another look at this, a closer look, Trace.
GALLAGHER: Shannon, how is this playing out on Capitol Hill?
BREAM: Well, you know, surprisingly -- not surprisingly, Republicans have said we're going to fight this. But a little bit more surprisingly, there is very strong, very organized Democratic opposition as well. We have a letter that came from 65 Democrats on the House side to the attorney general. We've got a quote from that.
It says: "It is hard to believe the ban would be any more effective in controlling crime by well-funded international drug traffickers, who regularly use grenade launchers, anti-tank rockets, and other weapons that are not available on the civilian market in the U.S."
So they say these guns that would be banned, that's not the only thing that these guys have in their arsenal. Also another letter went out from Senators [Max] Baucus [D-MT] and [Jon] Tester [D-MT], saying they will vigorously oppose any attempt to revive this ban.
So there is definitely organized bipartisan support against this that will be motivated to fight with the attorney general is proposing, Trace.
GALLAGHER: And I guess the bottom line here, Shannon, is does the administration have the support it needs?
BREAM: You know what? It doesn't sound like it right now because even top Democratic leaders -- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid [D-NV] and also House Speaker Nancy Pelosi [D-CA] -- have come out and said, you know, we don't want to go down this path. We're not in favor of reinstating a ban here. What we need to do is enforce the gun laws that we have in effect right now.
And that's something you're hearing from people on both sides of this debate. They say the U.S. already makes it illegal for these guns to go across the border. Things have to be enforced on both sides of the border in order to make it effective. Let's do that. Let's make sure that's working before we pass an even broader law that's going to also need to be enforced. Let's start with what we have on the books now, Trace.
GALLAGHER: Shannon Bream live in D.C. Shannon, thank you.
ByTor - 28 Mar 2009 14:19 GMT In article <62a4a39a-d00b-4d17-a470- b6e91b64605a@z1g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, edspyhill01@gmail.com says...
> http://mediamatters.org/items/printable/200903270036 > [quoted text clipped - 129 lines] > > GALLAGHER: Shannon Bream live in D.C. Shannon, thank you. So once again the many law abiding gunholders have to suffer for the few that choose to break the law. Sounds like a smokescreen of bullshit to me. What was that this administration said, "never let a crisis go to waste," seems to apply here as well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mzcbXi1Tkk&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B62igfNu-T0&feature=related
Conscience - 28 Mar 2009 14:45 GMT > So once again the many law abiding gunholders have to suffer for the few > that choose to break the law. Sounds like a smokescreen of bullshit to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B62igfNu-T0&feature=related What I always find interesting is how often situations in which guns, or any other inanimate object is blamed for deaths, seem to occur when the wrong people have the most power to address possession of said object.
God forbid that the state would be granted the power to have done something about this nut-job walking the streets BEFORE he went on a gun rampage. No way. That would violate HIS rights.
When someone uses a bathtub to kill her five children, or plows his car intentionally through a crowd killing dozens, or conspires to use propane tanks as bombs to blow up a school, no one wants to talk about bathtubs, cars, or gas tanks.
ByTor - 28 Mar 2009 15:07 GMT > > So once again the many law abiding gunholders have to suffer for the few > > that choose to break the law. Sounds like a smokescreen of bullshit to [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > propane tanks as bombs to blow up a school, no one wants to talk about > bathtubs, cars, or gas tanks. Interesting record:
http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=2322
Barack Obama?s gun control policy, or should I write anti-gun record is long and informative:
1994 to 2001 - Obama was on the board of the anti-gun Joyce Foundation. This foundation is the largest funding source for radical anti-gun groups in the country. 1996 - Obama supported a ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns. 1999 - Obama proposed a 500 percent increase in the excise taxes on firearms and ammunition. This tax would effectively punish gun owners for buying guns and ammunition. 2003 - Obama voted in support of legislation that would have banned privately owned hunting shotguns, target rifles and black powder rifles in Illinois. 2004 - Obama voted against legislation intended to protect homeowners from prosecution in cases where they used a firearm to halt a home invasion.
Barack Obama now claims he is not anti-gun ownership. His campaign has put out statements saying he supports law abiding citizens? right to own certain types of guns used for particular purposes. In fact, his campaign says that he?ll uphold the Second Amendment. His voting record belies what he now claims, that as President he would be no threat to American gun owners.
Conscience - 28 Mar 2009 15:32 GMT >>> So once again the many law abiding gunholders have to suffer for the fe > w [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > belies what he now claims, that as President he would be no threat to > American gun owners. Just another wolf in sheep's clothing. No responsible gun owner would have voted for Obama, unless they're an idiot.
JoeSpareBedroom - 28 Mar 2009 15:40 GMT > So once again the many law abiding gunholders have to suffer for the few > that choose to break the law. Sounds like a smokescreen of bullshit to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B62igfNu-T0&feature=related Show of hands, please. If any of you in this thread was told that you alone could make all recreational drugs legal simply by saying YES, would you do it? If not, why not?
edspyhill01 - 28 Mar 2009 16:20 GMT On Mar 28, 10:40 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" <newstr...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
> > So once again the many law abiding gunholders have to suffer for the few > > that choose to break the law. Sounds like a smokescreen of bullshit to [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > could make all recreational drugs legal simply by saying YES, would you do > it? If not, why not? I would "legalize" drugs but have them sold like prescription drugs from licensed outlets. People would not need a prescription but would have to sign for them. Keep/put the profits from growing, processing and selling recreational drugs in the US.
JoeSpareBedroom - 28 Mar 2009 16:26 GMT On Mar 28, 10:40 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" <newstr...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
> "ByTor" <By...@snowdog.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > could make all recreational drugs legal simply by saying YES, would you do > it? If not, why not? I would "legalize" drugs but have them sold like prescription drugs from licensed outlets. People would not need a prescription but would have to sign for them. Keep/put the profits from growing, processing and selling recreational drugs in the US.
============
Why sign for them?
edspyhill01 - 28 Mar 2009 18:17 GMT On Mar 28, 11:26 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" <newstr...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
> On Mar 28, 10:40 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" <newstr...@frontiernet.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Why sign for them? Proof of age. Tracking responsibility for driving impaired, doing stupid things, things we know druggies do.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=305vRNoofr8
JoeSpareBedroom - 28 Mar 2009 18:29 GMT On Mar 28, 11:26 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" <newstr...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
> "edspyhill01" <edspyhil...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Why sign for them? Proof of age. Tracking responsibility for driving impaired, doing stupid things, things we know druggies do.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=305vRNoofr8
===============
You don't have to sign to buy cold meds (for the most part), but they can knock you on your a.s as well as illegal drugs.
edspyhill01 - 28 Mar 2009 18:51 GMT On Mar 28, 1:29 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" <newstr...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
> On Mar 28, 11:26 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" <newstr...@frontiernet.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > You don't have to sign to buy cold meds (for the most part), but they can > knock you on your a.s as well as illegal drugs. Yes, but... This is the rut we all get in. We could just leave things as they are and invest in commercial law enforcement and prison companies. I don't use drugs. I think they are stupid. I don't care one way or the other really. I changed my mind - keep them illegal.
JoeSpareBedroom - 28 Mar 2009 18:55 GMT On Mar 28, 1:29 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" <newstr...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
> "edspyhill01" <edspyhil...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > You don't have to sign to buy cold meds (for the most part), but they can > knock you on your a.s as well as illegal drugs. Yes, but... This is the rut we all get in. We could just leave things as they are and invest in commercial law enforcement and prison companies. I don't use drugs. I think they are stupid. I don't care one way or the other really. I changed my mind - keep them illegal.
====================
We already invest in private prisons, and I suspect that they are one of the strongest supporters of keeping drugs illegal. After all, there is absolutely NO indication that our current approach is working, even though law enforcement agencies love to show pictures of the drugs & weapons they confiscate.
If our government really cared about drugs, we'd be dropping nepalm on poppy fields in Afghanistan. We're free to do so, but we don't.
edspyhill01 - 28 Mar 2009 19:18 GMT On Mar 28, 1:55 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" <newstr...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
> On Mar 28, 1:29 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" <newstr...@frontiernet.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > If our government really cared about drugs, we'd be dropping nepalm on poppy > fields in Afghanistan. We're free to do so, but we don't. Notice where all the wars have been - Vietnam - morphine/heroin, Afghan.Iraq - morphine/heroin, South America - cocaine, pot.
Jeff Strickland - 28 Mar 2009 18:17 GMT On Mar 28, 10:40 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" <newstr...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
> "ByTor" <By...@snowdog.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > could make all recreational drugs legal simply by saying YES, would you do > it? If not, why not? I would "legalize" drugs but have them sold like prescription drugs from licensed outlets. People would not need a prescription but would have to sign for them. Keep/put the profits from growing, processing and selling recreational drugs in the US.
<JS> You can't make people sign for the drugs because that violates their privacy.
</JS>
Jeff Strickland - 28 Mar 2009 18:08 GMT >> So once again the many law abiding gunholders have to suffer for the few >> that choose to break the law. Sounds like a smokescreen of bullshit to [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > alone could make all recreational drugs legal simply by saying YES, would > you do it? If not, why not? I lost a cousin to drugs. I was talking to a woman yesterday that just got home from a funeral for her nephew that died from drug use.
I vote that drugs should remain illegal.
If a person is using drugs and commits another crime -- driving under the influence, for example -- I'd be okay with a death penalty being imposed. If we are not going to get serious against drugs, then we may as well throw in the towel and let our young men and women kill themselves with drugs. The problem I have isn't that they kill themselves, the problem is that they kill innocent people around them.
AS IS NEARLY ALWAYS THE CASE You are talking about a tangental issue. The topic here is the abolition of the 2nd Amendment. The drug wars in Mexico are the force behind the move by the Obama Administration to institute a gun ban in America. You want to legalize drugs, Obama wants to ban guns.
edspyhill01 - 28 Mar 2009 18:15 GMT > >> So once again the many law abiding gunholders have to suffer for the few > >> that choose to break the law. Sounds like a smokescreen of bullshit to [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > the Obama Administration to institute a gun ban in America. You want to > legalize drugs, Obama wants to ban guns. I understand all the concerns. I lost several relatives to alcohol abuse. All family members involved with drugs cleaned up and went on to live productive lives. I think we can agree prohibition of anything does not work.
JoeSpareBedroom - 28 Mar 2009 18:16 GMT >>> So once again the many law abiding gunholders have to suffer for the few >>> that choose to break the law. Sounds like a smokescreen of bullshit to [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > I vote that drugs should remain illegal. A highly regarded musician here died last week. Liver failure due to the combination of Tylenol and alcohol. According to sources close to him, it didn't involve what you and I would call an excessive amount of alcohol, either. Should we make Tylenol illegal?
> If a person is using drugs and commits another crime -- driving under the > influence, for example -- I'd be okay with a death penalty being imposed. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > move by the Obama Administration to institute a gun ban in America. You > want to legalize drugs, Obama wants to ban guns. As is nearly always the case, you are missing a lot of information, but still trying to sound like you know what you're talking about. Add these facts together and see what you come up with:
1) Illegality hasn't made the slightest dent in the availability of drugs. Nada. Nothing.
2) Our current laws guarantee that violent criminals have a monopoly in the drug business.
3) Making drugs legal would instantly eliminate that monopoly, and that would make guns irrelevant without involving any sort of debate about the 2nd amendment.
ByTor - 28 Mar 2009 18:45 GMT > > So once again the many law abiding gunholders have to suffer for the few > > that choose to break the law. Sounds like a smokescreen of bullshit to [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > could make all recreational drugs legal simply by saying YES, would you do > it? If not, why not? First of all this has nothing to do with the thread but I'll answer. As of this moment they are discussing random piss tests for welfare recipients & possibly unemployment. Unemployment is bullshit but I would stick to the welfare. So, my answer, no legalazation because than we can clean up all the welfare whores getting high off the system.
JoeSpareBedroom - 28 Mar 2009 18:47 GMT >> > So once again the many law abiding gunholders have to suffer for the >> > few [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > stick to the welfare. So, my answer, no legalazation because than we can > clean up all the welfare whores getting high off the system. So, you're OK with the violence connected with drugs? It will never stop if drugs remain illegal. Never. Ain't gonna happen. The carnage in Mexico is now spilling over into this country. There's nothing we can do to stop that, either.
You're OK with all this?
Jeff Strickland - 28 Mar 2009 19:15 GMT >>> > So once again the many law abiding gunholders have to suffer for the >>> > few [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > You're OK with all this? But if we random test welfare recipients, then we get the welfare crackwhores off of welfare, or we reduce the demand for drugs, which helps stop the carnage in Mexico.
But, the article is not about drugs, it's about the encroachment of the Obama Administration on our 2nd Amendment rights.
JoeSpareBedroom - 28 Mar 2009 19:18 GMT >>>> > So once again the many law abiding gunholders have to suffer for the >>>> > few [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > crackwhores off of welfare, or we reduce the demand for drugs, which helps > stop the carnage in Mexico. What percentage of heroin, cocaine, meth and marijuana users are on welfare? Please show your source for this data.
> But, the article is not about drugs, it's about the encroachment of the > Obama Administration on our 2nd Amendment rights. Not about drugs? "90% of Mexican cartel guns from the US"
Which cartel are they talking about? The taco cartel?
Jeff Strickland - 28 Mar 2009 21:36 GMT >> But if we random test welfare recipients, then we get the welfare >> crackwhores off of welfare, or we reduce the demand for drugs, which >> helps stop the carnage in Mexico. > > What percentage of heroin, cocaine, meth and marijuana users are on > welfare? Please show your source for this data. Don't know, don't care. One is too many. Obama is not asking to drug test welfare recipients. Indeed, the liberals are the ones fighting the idea.
>> But, the article is not about drugs, it's about the encroachment of the >> Obama Administration on our 2nd Amendment rights. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Which cartel are they talking about? The taco cartel? You don't get it. Obama is not concerned with the inflow of drugs, he's concerned with the guns. If he can ban guns in the name of the drug war, idiots like you will go along with him. If he just came out and proclaimed guns to be illegal, everybody would pitch a fit. But if he comes out and asserts that guns cause drugs, or that guns and drugs go together, then he can ban guns and everybody will cheer him on.
Obama does not give a rat's a.s about drugs, he's trying to ban guns.
JoeSpareBedroom - 28 Mar 2009 21:41 GMT >>> But if we random test welfare recipients, then we get the welfare >>> crackwhores off of welfare, or we reduce the demand for drugs, which [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Don't know, don't care. One is too many. In other words, your theory holds no water because you invented it, and you have absolutely nothing to back it up.
> Obama is not asking to drug test welfare recipients. I'd like to read more about that. Show your source.
> Indeed, the liberals are the ones fighting the idea. Which liberals, and why are they fighting the idea? Show your source.
>>> But, the article is not about drugs, it's about the encroachment of the >>> Obama Administration on our 2nd Amendment rights. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Obama does not give a rat's a.s about drugs, he's trying to ban guns. All reliable sources prove that you know are not in possession of enough information to be in this discussion. Furthermore, you will do nothing to change the problem (your lack of information).
Jeff Strickland - 29 Mar 2009 00:11 GMT >>>> But if we random test welfare recipients, then we get the welfare >>>> crackwhores off of welfare, or we reduce the demand for drugs, which [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > In other words, your theory holds no water because you invented it, and > you have absolutely nothing to back it up. What theory?
There is a plan afoot to do randon drug testing on wefare recipients. It's not my theory. As for the percentages of welfare recipients on drugs, I don't know and don't care. If they are on the public dole, they ought not be buying drugs. Test 'em.
>> Obama is not asking to drug test welfare recipients. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Which liberals, and why are they fighting the idea? Show your source. Read a f.cking newspaper, you nitwit. Or, watch the news programs on your TV.
There is an idea to do random drug tests on wefare recipients. There is an objection that the testing will cut people that need welfare from the welfare rolls. That's a good thing, if you ask me. It's a bad thing for the liberals because they like to paint drug users as victims, and they need a few good victims.
>>>> But, the article is not about drugs, it's about the encroachment of the >>>> Obama Administration on our 2nd Amendment rights. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > information to be in this discussion. Furthermore, you will do nothing to > change the problem (your lack of information). The article is about using the drug wars on the border to restrict 2nd Amendment rights. If you had any reading comprehension skills at all, you would not be making the argument you are making.
JoeSpareBedroom - 29 Mar 2009 01:08 GMT >>>>> But if we random test welfare recipients, then we get the welfare >>>>> crackwhores off of welfare, or we reduce the demand for drugs, which [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > What theory? Your theory that testing welfare recipients will have a SIGNIFICANT impact on demand for drugs. Your have no numbers to back up your claim.
> There is a plan afoot to do randon drug testing on wefare recipients. It's > not my theory. As for the percentages of welfare recipients on drugs, I [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > Amendment rights. If you had any reading comprehension skills at all, you > would not be making the argument you are making. If we legalized drugs, then politicians wouldn't be driven to say desperately stupid things about gun rights because we would put violent drug cartels out of business.
Because we will never solve the drug problem, you can expect to continue hearing stupid ideas about guns. If you don't like it, write to your elected barnacles and demand that drugs be made legal. There is no other way.
Jeff Strickland - 29 Mar 2009 18:42 GMT >>>>>> But if we random test welfare recipients, then we get the welfare >>>>>> crackwhores off of welfare, or we reduce the demand for drugs, which [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] > elected barnacles and demand that drugs be made legal. There is no other > way. Jeff Strickland - 29 Mar 2009 18:45 GMT >>>>>> But if we random test welfare recipients, then we get the welfare >>>>>> crackwhores off of welfare, or we reduce the demand for drugs, which [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Your theory that testing welfare recipients will have a SIGNIFICANT impact > on demand for drugs. Your have no numbers to back up your claim. If you had replied to the next paragraph, you would see that it is not my theory. I don't remember anything about SIGNIFICANT, you made that part up.
>> The article is about using the drug wars on the border to restrict 2nd >> Amendment rights. If you had any reading comprehension skills at all, you [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > elected barnacles and demand that drugs be made legal. There is no other > way. You are an idiot. Turn your guns in and go back to your drugs.
JoeSpareBedroom - 29 Mar 2009 18:56 GMT >>>>>>> But if we random test welfare recipients, then we get the welfare >>>>>>> crackwhores off of welfare, or we reduce the demand for drugs, which [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > theory. I don't remember anything about SIGNIFICANT, you made that part > up. Good reason for drug testing: To shut off their benefits if they're spending tax dollars on drugs.
Stupid reason for drug testing: Because someone thinks it'll have an important effect in terms of reducing demand for drugs.
I suspect that the people who want to do the testing have mentioned reason #1. I'd be surprised if any of them suggested reason #2. Got any information to sort all this out?
*************************
>> If we legalized drugs, then politicians wouldn't be driven to say >> desperately stupid things about gun rights because we would put violent [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> elected barnacles and demand that drugs be made legal. There is no other >> way. *************************
> You are an idiot. Turn your guns in and go back to your drugs. See the text aboove, surrounded by rows of asterisks? You said I'm an idiot, which I assume was your reaction to the text surrounded by asterisks. Describe EXACTLY which of my 3 claims you don't agree with in those paragraphs, and why you don't agree with my 3 claims.
Jeff Strickland - 29 Mar 2009 19:52 GMT >>>>>>>> But if we random test welfare recipients, then we get the welfare >>>>>>>> crackwhores off of welfare, or we reduce the demand for drugs, [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > asterisks. Describe EXACTLY which of my 3 claims you don't agree with in > those paragraphs, and why you don't agree with my 3 claims. So, you think it is smart to make a black market in guns, which are a guaranteed right of the 2nd Amendemnt, in favor of dismanteling the black market on drugs for which there is no right under the Constitution? You are in favor of denying my right to own a gun in order to allow illicit drug makers in another country to make a living producing drugs that serve no medicinal purpose. You would violate my rights in order to allow drug makers from other countries to prey upon my children?
Great. You're an idiot.
There are sooooo many things wrong with your thinking process, first among them is that by all indications you do not think.
CharlesTheCurmudgeon - 29 Mar 2009 20:09 GMT >>>>>>>>> But if we random test welfare recipients, then we get the welfare >>>>>>>>> crackwhores off of welfare, or we reduce the demand for drugs, [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > There are sooooo many things wrong with your thinking process, first among > them is that by all indications you do not think. Then he wonders why I don't even read his posts anymore.
Sir Charles THE Curmudgeon
CharlesTheCurmudgeon - 29 Mar 2009 20:09 GMT >>>>>>>>> But if we random test welfare recipients, then we get the welfare >>>>>>>>> crackwhores off of welfare, or we reduce the demand for drugs, [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > There are sooooo many things wrong with your thinking process, first among > them is that by all indications you do not think. Then he wonders why I don't even read his posts anymore.
Sir Charles THE Curmudgeon
JoeSpareBedroom - 29 Mar 2009 20:41 GMT >>>> Your theory that testing welfare recipients will have a SIGNIFICANT >>>> impact on demand for drugs. Your have no numbers to back up your claim. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >> reason #1. I'd be surprised if any of them suggested reason #2. Got any >> information to sort all this out? You forgot to show your source of information about the stupid reason for drug testing. Is this because it's YOUR reason, and no public official has suggested it?
>> ************************* >>>> If we legalized drugs, then politicians wouldn't be driven to say [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > There are sooooo many things wrong with your thinking process, first among > them is that by all indications you do not think. Your conclusions are absurd. The gunplay in Mexico has one AND ONLY ONE cause: People similar to Al Capone are at war with each other over illegal drugs and the turf involved.
Make the drugs legal and those Capones are out of business overnight. The gunplay ends. No reason to mess with the 2nd amendment.
End of problem.
Jeff Strickland - 29 Mar 2009 20:46 GMT >>>>> Your theory that testing welfare recipients will have a SIGNIFICANT >>>>> impact on demand for drugs. Your have no numbers to back up your [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > \ http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090326/ap_on_bi_ge/states_welfare_with_strings
JoeSpareBedroom - 29 Mar 2009 20:53 GMT >>>>>> Your theory that testing welfare recipients will have a SIGNIFICANT >>>>>> impact on demand for drugs. Your have no numbers to back up your [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090326/ap_on_bi_ge/states_welfare_with_strings That article doesn't achieve your purpose. I stated two reasons for drug testing (repeated below). I called the first one a GOOD REASON because I agree with it. I told you to present proof that any public official wants drug testing for the STUPID REASON (see below). I told you to provide proof because I'm quite certain that YOU made up the reason, not some public official.
Show proof that a proponent of drug testing used the stupid reason shown below.
******************** Good reason for drug testing: To shut off their benefits if they're spending tax dollars on drugs.
Stupid reason for drug testing: Because someone thinks it'll have an important effect in terms of reducing demand for drugs. ********************
Jeff Strickland - 30 Mar 2009 00:14 GMT >>>>>>> Your theory that testing welfare recipients will have a SIGNIFICANT >>>>>>> impact on demand for drugs. Your have no numbers to back up your [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > spending > tax dollars on drugs. ANY dollar that is given out to welfare recipients that allows a dollar to be spent to buy drugs is worth stopping. If a person is getting a dollar for milk, and they then use a dollar to buy drugs, we should hold back the next dollar for more milk. Why is that so complicated for you? If they have a dollar to buy drugs with, they can use that dollar to buy milk, and therefore do not need a public dollar to buy milk. Indeed, they are spending the public dollar for drugs. They are in effect saying, I have enough money for drugs, but I need help to buy milk. On the other hand, they are saying, I have money for milk, but then I haven't enough money for drugs.
> Stupid reason for drug testing: Because someone thinks it'll have an > important effect in terms of reducing demand for drugs. If a welfare recipient is getting dollar to buy milk, and that dollar allows them to spend a different dollar for drugs, then we should not be giving them the dollar for milk because they already have a dollar and don't need ours. If we remove the public dollars for those that use drugs, then the drug users have to use their money for milk, not for drugs. If they are diverting milk money to drugs, then public funding is buying drugs. We stop the public funding of drug use, and drug use declines. Is the decline significant? I don't know and don't care. Are my tax dollars going to drug use? Today, yes they are. If we do drug tests on people receiving my tax dollars, then ultimately my tax dollars are not being used to support drug use. That's good enough for me.
JoeSpareBedroom - 30 Mar 2009 12:59 GMT >>>>>>>> Your theory that testing welfare recipients will have a SIGNIFICANT >>>>>>>> impact on demand for drugs. Your have no numbers to back up your [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > receiving my tax dollars, then ultimately my tax dollars are not being > used to support drug use. That's good enough for me. Just as I thought. The stupid reason was yours, not some public official's.
No expert on the drug war will ever say such a thing.
Jeff Strickland - 30 Mar 2009 16:45 GMT >>>>>>>>> Your theory that testing welfare recipients will have a >>>>>>>>> SIGNIFICANT impact on demand for drugs. Your have no numbers to [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] > > No expert on the drug war will ever say such a thing. Actually they did say it. I said it differently in the mistaken hope that you might understand.
Government used to write checks to welfare recipients, but found the checks were cashed and the money used to buy drugs. Now, they issue a gift card (of sorts) that cannot be cashed out but must be used for food. The problem is, a welfare recipient takes a side job that pays very little, uses that money for drugs and the welfare money for food. Random drug testing of welfare recipients is sorta the same as firing the head of GM. GM takes public money but fails to turn itself around, so the head gets the ax. You're okay with that, but you argue strenuously that welfare recipients should get public money to keep taking drugs -- effectively failing to turn theirselves around.
It's too bad that such simple things pass right over your head.
JoeSpareBedroom - 30 Mar 2009 16:54 GMT >>>>>>>>>> Your theory that testing welfare recipients will have a >>>>>>>>>> SIGNIFICANT impact on demand for drugs. Your have no numbers to [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] > > Actually they did say it. Liar. Prove it. Show your source(s).
> Government used to write checks to welfare recipients, but found the > checks were cashed and the money used to buy drugs. Now, they issue a gift [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > It's too bad that such simple things pass right over your head. The program you are describing is designed to prevent welfare money from being spent on drugs.
The program you are describing is NOT designed to help with the much larger "war on drugs".
ByTor - 28 Mar 2009 23:25 GMT > >>> > So once again the many law abiding gunholders have to suffer for the > >>> > few [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > But, the article is not about drugs, it's about the encroachment of the > Obama Administration on our 2nd Amendment rights. Jeff, who did that above reply come from? I'm looking at my thread order & don't see that as a reply to me but its right below my response? Was that you Joe responding to me? These threads really get confusing sometimes with the choppers & top posters.
JoeSpareBedroom - 28 Mar 2009 23:32 GMT >> >>> > So once again the many law abiding gunholders have to suffer for >> >>> > the [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > that you Joe responding to me? These threads really get confusing > sometimes with the choppers & top posters. Wasn't from me.
ByTor - 28 Mar 2009 23:34 GMT > >> >>> > So once again the many law abiding gunholders have to suffer for > >> >>> > the [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > > Wasn't from me. Wierd....(LMAO) It only shows up in Jeff,s response......Sorry Joe.
Jeff Strickland - 28 Mar 2009 23:35 GMT >> >>> > So once again the many law abiding gunholders have to suffer for >> >>> > the [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > that you Joe responding to me? These threads really get confusing > sometimes with the choppers & top posters. I replied to Joe.
Jeff Strickland - 28 Mar 2009 23:44 GMT >> >>> > So once again the many law abiding gunholders have to suffer for >> >>> > the [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > that you Joe responding to me? These threads really get confusing > sometimes with the choppers & top posters. According to my news reader, you said that you support random drug testing for welfare recipients, but not for unemployment recipients. That was in response to Joe's request for a show of hands, all in favor of legalizing drugs, say aye. Your answer was nay.
Joe then asked if you were okay with the violence connected to drug use -- I assume he was referring to the violence in Mexico and along our border.
I then told him -- more or less in agreement with your post, I think -- that if we did random drug tests on welfare whores, then it would either reduce the drug demand or trim the welfare rolls. Either result is a good one.
I'm pretty sure you and I are on the same page here. I'm not sure I would object to random drug testing of unemployment recipients, but otherwise I think random drug testing of those on the public dole is a good idea.
JoeSpareBedroom - 28 Mar 2009 23:51 GMT >>> >>> > So once again the many law abiding gunholders have to suffer for >>> >>> > the [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > Joe then asked if you were okay with the violence connected to drug use -- > I assume he was referring to the violence in Mexico and along our border. You assumed wrong about the violence. It's happening here, too, and it's getting worse. It will continue getting worse. You will now disagree.
Jeff Strickland - 29 Mar 2009 00:15 GMT > You assumed wrong about the violence. It's happening here, too, and it's > getting worse. It will continue getting worse. You will now disagree. I did not assume wrong. I may have characterized the violence in simplistic terms, but I do that to keep from confusing you.
Just because you are an idiot does not make me wrong, but my being wrong might make you less of an idiot. I doubt it, but it could happen.
ByTor - 29 Mar 2009 00:13 GMT > >> >>> > So once again the many law abiding gunholders have to suffer for > >> >>> > the [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > response to Joe's request for a show of hands, all in favor of legalizing > drugs, say aye. Your answer was nay. Okay.
> Joe then asked if you were okay with the violence connected to drug use -- I > assume he was referring to the violence in Mexico and along our border. He said it wasn't him, now I'm really confused.
> I then told him -- more or less in agreement with your post, I think -- that > if we did random drug tests on welfare whores, then it would either reduce > the drug demand or trim the welfare rolls. Either result is a good one. Yes, I do agree with that.
> I'm pretty sure you and I are on the same page here. I'm not sure I > would object to random drug testing of unemployment recipients, but > otherwise I think random drug testing of those on the public dole is a > good idea. Oh I agree but as I said I'm not sure about the unemployment thing, especially at this current time when government beefed up & extended the benefits. Maybe it would be something to look into later on but I still don't see a justification though, if they are on it full term does that mean its associated to laziness or drug abuse? I dunno on that one.
I also seen the show me proof of welfare people doing drugs question thrown out there. Me personally, I can only go by visual experience, and the experiences in my life & the things I have seen in the system physically leads me to a conclusion that a LOT of them are drug addicts using the money. But I guess my "personal" experience will be deflected anyway so I don't think I would want to get personal on it.........;0)
Jeff Strickland - 29 Mar 2009 00:24 GMT >> >> >>> > So once again the many law abiding gunholders have to suffer for >> >> >>> > the [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] > > He said it wasn't him, now I'm really confused. Joe is on drugs, he doesn't know what he said. Even if he's not on drugs, his memory is very short and he frequently has no idea what is going on. He hijacked his own thread yesterday, then denied it.
He clearly asked you in response to your initial post (a respsonse to his asking for a show of hands) in this discussion if you were okay with the drug violence. He is an advocate of legalizing drug use.
The header lists his email (fake) but omits his name for some reason. Perhaps that is part of the confusion.
ByTor - 29 Mar 2009 00:34 GMT > >> >> >>> > So once again the many law abiding gunholders have to suffer for > >> >> >>> > the [quoted text clipped - 80 lines] > The header lists his email (fake) but omits his name for some reason. > Perhaps that is part of the confusion. Ah okay, it did not show up at all. I thought maybe it was a "time" issue as I run Windows 2000 & there was an issue with the time zones not being right. Oh well, if it was him I have NO idea what it had to do with my response anyway.........;0)
JoeSpareBedroom - 29 Mar 2009 01:11 GMT >> >> >>> > So once again the many law abiding gunholders have to suffer for >> >> >>> > the [quoted text clipped - 77 lines] > > Yes, I do agree with that. Just one problem: Strickland thinks the AMOUNT OF REDUCED DEMAND FOR DRUGS will have a significant impact. But, he can't prove it because he has no information about how many welfare recipients use illegal drugs. He also has no information about what percentage of illegal drugs are sold to welfare recipients.
ByTor - 29 Mar 2009 00:06 GMT > > > So once again the many law abiding gunholders have to suffer for the few > > > that choose to break the law. Sounds like a smokescreen of bullshit to [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > stick to the welfare. So, my answer, no legalazation because than we can > clean up all the welfare whores getting high off the system. Is this where your reply was?
"So, you're OK with the violence connected with drugs? It will never stop if drugs remain illegal. Never. Ain't gonna happen. The carnage in Mexico is now spilling over into this country. There's nothing we can do to stop that, either."
" You're OK with all this?"
JoeSpareBedroom - 29 Mar 2009 01:11 GMT >> > > So once again the many law abiding gunholders have to suffer for the >> > > few [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > " You're OK with all this?" Yep. I await your considered response.
ByTor - 29 Mar 2009 01:22 GMT > >> > > So once again the many law abiding gunholders have to suffer for the > >> > > few [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Yep. I await your considered response. My reply would be what does it have to do with what "I" said first? Your original question was legalization & show of hands right? I said no because I connected it with what I heard about random drug tests for welfare recipients and legalizing it would make it okay for welfare abusers. And if anyone in their right mind does not believe that there are a LARGE percentage of people that do not use welfare for drugs is sadly mistaken. Maybe they changed the system where their is NO cash & food stamps in hand than I will stand corrected. You asked for evidence & support for my observation, I can only tell through personal experience which I really wouldn't care to reveal but I have witnessed first hand abuse in the system. As I said that was years ago, maybe things have changed.
Now to your second part am I okay with the violance? Of course not, who would be? I've seen people get their throats slit for a crack pipe with resin in it, as well as many other acts of violance for smaller things. If I had the choice of going to the government & being exposed personally by signing & being documented I'd guarantee that the "legal" drugs will STILL find their way in the market at much cheaper prices. So legalizing in my opinion the cartels will still exist in competition with the government for cheaper drugs.
Scott in Florida - 30 Mar 2009 01:18 GMT >> So once again the many law abiding gunholders have to suffer for the few >> that choose to break the law. Sounds like a smokescreen of bullshit to [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >could make all recreational drugs legal simply by saying YES, would you do >it? If not, why not? Hell no!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Everyone would be like you......
 Signature Scott in Florida
Conscience - 30 Mar 2009 03:02 GMT >>> So once again the many law abiding gunholders have to suffer for the few >>> that choose to break the law. Sounds like a smokescreen of bullshit to [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Everyone would be like you...... Stop and think about this for a moment. Much could happen if these drugs were legalized.
1. Micky-D's would have a plethora of burger slingers.
2. Drug-induced stupor likely would prevent reproduction of this shallow section of the gene pool.
3. Dealers would be gone from street corners/crack houses.
4. Should the left-wing be proven correct, and evolution is actually a fact, the end game via death is the obvious fate of these idiots.
5. The taxpayer wins.
ByTor - 30 Mar 2009 03:15 GMT > >>> So once again the many law abiding gunholders have to suffer for the few > >>> that choose to break the law. Sounds like a smokescreen of bullshit to [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > 5. The taxpayer wins. Or we can create a whole new nation of business greedy, sucking our country dry selfish baby boomers again. Afterall weren't they the self righteous elitists that smoked & drugged their way to selfish isolationism & are now telling us how to live our lives?
Conscience - 30 Mar 2009 03:32 GMT >> Stop and think about this for a moment. Much could happen if these >> drugs were legalized. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > righteous elitists that smoked & drugged their way to selfish > isolationism & are now telling us how to live our lives? And how we SHOULD have raised our kids to be just like their "enlightened" selves.
Scott in Florida - 30 Mar 2009 14:55 GMT >>>> So once again the many law abiding gunholders have to suffer for the few >>>> that choose to break the law. Sounds like a smokescreen of bullshit to [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > >5. The taxpayer wins. I LOVE driving in Tampa during the noon hour. The Yuppies on coke are VERY aggressive till the buzz wears off. Obvious to the causal observer.
 Signature Scott in Florida
CharlesTheCurmudgeon - 28 Mar 2009 18:15 GMT > In article <62a4a39a-d00b-4d17-a470- > b6e91b64605a@z1g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, edspyhill01@gmail.com says... [quoted text clipped - 141 lines] > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B62igfNu-T0&feature=related Looks like Ed needs to have his meds checked again.
Sir Charles THE Curmudgeon
edspyhill01 - 28 Mar 2009 18:40 GMT > > In article <62a4a39a-d00b-4d17-a470- > > b6e91b646...@z1g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, edspyhil...@gmail.com says... [quoted text clipped - 145 lines] > > Sir Charles THE Curmudgeon Ho ho. You need to find your own moniker for me, I think dbu or hachi owns the meds one. I think your's is I fish in the tub.
I own guns. I think we all should own guns. I was listening to a sometimes left-wing talk show host who is a socialist who thinks we all should own guns. I think we need to track them. As far as - if we register guns the government will know who has them? I've noticed dictators just waste everyone with incredible fire power. I have a problem that I can buy x number if guns a week or month but don't have to explain why I no longer have most of them.
I have a collector's model pump Winchester .22 hammerless that I gave back to my father for his collection. I live 3 blocks from an indoor firing range that I plan to teach my wife to shot handguns. As the economy spirals down I will have a couple of pump shotguns for protections. I may have only canned beans but to some hungry roving clan that is a delicacy.
Jeff Strickland - 28 Mar 2009 17:58 GMT > http://mediamatters.org/items/printable/200903270036 > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > traced were determined to have originated from various sources within > the U.S." An anecdotal claim? I'm pretty sure that an anecdotal claim is akin to hearsay, which is essentially a story that has been heard then repeated.
The report was not so much about the guns on our southern border as it was about the Obama Administration (through Eric Holder) seeking to violate the 2nd Amendment _because_ of the guns on the southern border.
Hillary Clinton, our esteemed Secretary of State, said earlier in the week that the violence in Mexico is our (America's) fault.
> In a joint prepared statement to the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on > Crime and Drugs, William Hoover, ATF assistant director for field [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > routinely being transported from the U.S. into Mexico in violation of > both U.S. and Mexican law. Guns are being transported by people that do not care about the laws they are violating. When a criminal does not care about the laws he is breaking, it does not matter what the law is.
In fact, according to ATF's National
> Tracing Center, 90 percent of the weapons that could be traced were > determined to have originated from various sources within the U.S. One [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > violence in Mexico. He says it would decrease the flow of guns from > the U.S. into Mexico. This is true, Holder did say that and Gallagher reported it.
> But gun rights advocates say liberal Democrats are using the war next > door to push for more restrictions on guns right here in the U.S. > Shannon Bream is following this live from D.C. She's on RM-232. This is true as well. Liberal Democrats (from the top down) are using the Mexican drug wars to restrict gun rights herre in the USA.
> And Shannon, the attorney general says the ban would help in the > battle with violence along the U.S.-Mexico border, but gun advocates [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > United States. So these folks say the Second Amendment is now under > attack by the attorney general. This is true as well, the agents onthe border are saying that the guns they are finding are coming from sources other than the USA.
I'm not sure how they would know that American-made guns are getting to Mexico through other than American sources, but that's the claim by the border agents.
> They think he is trying to reinstate this ban on assault weapons as a > way of, you know, getting gun control kind of maybe under the radar, [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > > GALLAGHER: Shannon Bream live in D.C. Shannon, thank you. The real story here is that the Obama Administration is building a case for gun control.
If one looks at the Big Picture, and considers what the Administration is doing with the economy -- taking it towards socialism -- and adds in the effects of gun control, a police state is not far away. Be very careful what you ask for ...
Jeff Strickland - 29 Mar 2009 20:02 GMT > http://mediamatters.org/items/printable/200903270036 > > Ignoring ATF data, Fox's Bream advanced "gun advocates" claim that > "vast majority" of Mexican cartel weapons not from US I saw that report as it was happening, and I think the point of the story was not it ignore ATF but to refute it.
At issue is that the Obama Administration is fervently anti-gun, and if they can paint a picture of how our gun laws are fueling a problem inside of Mexico, then the solution to the problem is to restrict our right to own guns.
Fox News was expoloring the other side of the story by interviewing the front-line agents on the border.
At the end of that report, the consensus was that the Mexican drug lords have rocket launchers and grenade throwers and other armament that vastly exceeds the power of the small arms that AFT has identified as coming from the US. Even without the small arms from the US that ATF claims are flowing south, the drug lords still have better weapons than the Mexican Army and police have.
JoeSpareBedroom - 29 Mar 2009 20:46 GMT >> http://mediamatters.org/items/printable/200903270036 >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > flowing south, the drug lords still have better weapons than the Mexican > Army and police have. "As Calderón pointed out during his summit with President Obama in January, there are thousands of gun stores just across the border in the United States; it is these stores that arm the cartels with AK-47s that are easily smuggled into Mexico. If Mexico or Canada were arming American criminals in such a fashion, Mexican officials like to point out, it would almost certainly be taken as an act of war."
Calderón's statement is correct. You will now claim that because I agree with him, I also support Obama messing with 2nd amendment rights. You will be wrong with your claim.
How do YOU think we should solve the problem described by Calderón? He is the Mexican president. He has information which you do not. You will assume he is correct, for purposed of this discussion.
dbu' - 29 Mar 2009 21:29 GMT > >> http://mediamatters.org/items/printable/200903270036 > >> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > the Mexican president. He has information which you do not. You will assume > he is correct, for purposed of this discussion. "president obama" you fuxxing windbag. Shut up and go sit in the corner.
 Signature
"It's deja vu all over again" Yogi Berra
Jeff Strickland - 30 Mar 2009 00:37 GMT > How do YOU think we should solve the problem described by Calderón? He is > the Mexican president. He has information which you do not. You will > assume he is correct, for purposed of this discussion. I don't think we should solve it at all. Calderon is the guy with gun laws that are being violated, let him solve it. Maybe he could stop all of the graft and corruption of public officials that allow drug lords to operate freely inside of Mexico.
If we were going to do anything, we would ask for citizenship papers before we sold guns to Mexicans. But that only sidesteps the problem because there are plenty of Mexicans with American citizenship papers that can buy guns for the drug lords. There is nothing that can be done in America short of banning guns, and banning guns goes against the 2nd Amendment.
It is wrong for Calderon to suggest that if our people were going into stores and buying guns, we would view that as an act of war. He has a populace that is out of control, and he blames his problems on us, so that meatheads like YOU pressure your elected officials to ban guns.
Our stores are not interested in, or even allowed to be interested in, where a customer comes from. If they could be concerned with where their customers live, then our government ought to be protecting the border more effectively so that customers from Mexico would not have access to our stores.
JoeSpareBedroom - 30 Mar 2009 13:00 GMT >> How do YOU think we should solve the problem described by Calderón? He is >> the Mexican president. He has information which you do not. You will [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > effectively so that customers from Mexico would not have access to our > stores. You are unbelievably naiive, immature and misinformed.
Jeff Strickland - 30 Mar 2009 16:46 GMT > You are unbelievably naiive, immature and misinformed. Yeah, I'm the dumbass. Right.
JoeSpareBedroom - 30 Mar 2009 16:55 GMT >> You are unbelievably naiive, immature and misinformed. > > Yeah, I'm the dumbass. Right. Tell me why the violence stopped when prohibition of alcohol was ended.
ByTor - 30 Mar 2009 17:11 GMT > >> You are unbelievably naiive, immature and misinformed. > > > > Yeah, I'm the dumbass. Right. > > Tell me why the violence stopped when prohibition of alcohol was ended. Why did it start to begin with? Outlaw something that has been more socially "acceptable" and has more history than illegal substances will ever have.
I can see where the argument would be in reverse, legalize drugs & the violence will stop. Than again society can be a tad hypocritical in picking & choosing what we want, alcohol is a drug & does destroy lives but its so ingrained in cultures & our society that, evidenced by prohibition, making it illegal will never work. Same thing as legalizing illicit substances, it will never be socially acceptable to the majority.
JoeSpareBedroom - 30 Mar 2009 17:22 GMT >> >> You are unbelievably naiive, immature and misinformed. >> > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > illicit substances, it will never be socially acceptable to the > majority. Depends on WHICH illicit substances, I think. Let's discuss just pot for the moment.
I promise you that if you could interview 500,000 random people as follows, you end up with the results below from half of them. "I" is the interviewer. "S" is the subject.
I: Can you tell me why marijuana was made illegal? S: Because it was found to be harmful. I: That was back in the 1930s. Have you ever heard of any recent and reliable research which proves that it's harmful, other than possibly damaging the lungs if overused? S: Uh....no. Not really. I: Do you think it should remain illegal? S: Yes. I: Why? S: Because it's harmful.
This interview represents half the country, which is comprised of idiots who arent' curious about much of anything, and never read anything more than their local newspaper (likely a Gannett or Knigh-Ridder rag). These people will never be comfortable with marijuana being legalized because they live in a fog and believe anything.
Do we really want our drug laws determined by people who live in a fog and believe anything?
ByTor - 30 Mar 2009 17:30 GMT > >> >> You are unbelievably naiive, immature and misinformed. > >> > [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > Do we really want our drug laws determined by people who live in a fog and > believe anything? So are you saying I live in a fog Joe? I've smoked pot Joe, more than you may be able to possibly imagine, I've also done MANY other illegal substances as well.......Am I a hypocrite because I would choose "not" to legalize any of it? Honestly if it was legalized when I dabbled I'd probably still be addicted.
BTW: I'm not one of those born agains either that think cigarettes, coffee, and alcohol should be illegal as well so don't assume that.......;0)
JoeSpareBedroom - 30 Mar 2009 17:37 GMT >> >> >> You are unbelievably naiive, immature and misinformed. >> >> > [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > coffee, and alcohol should be illegal as well so don't assume > that.......;0) 1) No reliable source you can find says drugs are harder to get because they are illegal.
2) Keeping them illegal guarantees violence since it places production and marketing under the control of entities which using nothing BUT violence to establish and maintain market share.
3) No reliable source you can find says drugs are harder to get because they are illegal. This bears repeating.
4) We are wasting billions of dollars on a drug war which does nothing but enrich the recipients of the funding. Nothing. No other effect.
5) The arms we're providing to Mexican police & soldiers are either being captured by or given to the very criminals those arms are supposed to be used against.
Now, tell me something positive about keeping drugs illegal. Especially marijuana, which is no more harmful than alcohol.
ByTor - 30 Mar 2009 17:59 GMT > >> >> >> You are unbelievably naiive, immature and misinformed. > >> >> > [quoted text clipped - 79 lines] > Now, tell me something positive about keeping drugs illegal. Especially > marijuana, which is no more harmful than alcohol. I see you didn't answer my question so I'll just assume that you think I'm an idiot & live in a fog, insult taken.
Thanks Joe, honestly I have no more to say on this subject.
JoeSpareBedroom - 30 Mar 2009 18:03 GMT >> >> >> >> You are unbelievably naiive, immature and misinformed. >> >> >> > [quoted text clipped - 95 lines] > > Thanks Joe, honestly I have no more to say on this subject. You obviously don't live in a fog, unless you are about to claim that marijuana is harmful, and especially more harmful than alcohol, a legal drug.
ByTor - 30 Mar 2009 18:18 GMT > >> >> >> >> You are unbelievably naiive, immature and misinformed. > >> >> >> > [quoted text clipped - 99 lines] > marijuana is harmful, and especially more harmful than alcohol, a legal > drug. Look, I have no other opinions to throw out about this because my "personal" experiences with substances, especially weed, would never allow me to be an advocate of legalizing marijuana, that's just point blank & goes against every principle I stand for. So based on my "own" moral & ethical grounds based on "MY" personal experience/s I will never advocate legalization.
JoeSpareBedroom - 30 Mar 2009 18:54 GMT >> >> >> >> >> You are unbelievably naiive, immature and misinformed. >> >> >> >> > [quoted text clipped - 125 lines] > moral & ethical grounds based on "MY" personal experience/s I will never > advocate legalization. Now, this is just plain silly. Marijuana is known to be ***psychologically*** addictive, in the same way as alcohol. If you think it should be illegal because of that, then logically, you have no choice but to think that alcohol should also be illegal.
You *could* point out that marijuana can exacerbate certain pre-existing mental health problems. But a simple google search using the words "alcohol" and "psychosis" will prove that booze is equally or perhaps more risky in that regard.
You *could* point out the smoking a certain amount of pot will harm your lungs. But, you'd have to be goofy to use that as a reason to keep pot illegal, considering what alcohol will do to your liver and pancreas.
So, please don't tell me that because YOU used marijuana irresponsibly, it should be illegal.
ByTor - 30 Mar 2009 19:35 GMT > >> >> >> >> >> You are unbelievably naiive, immature and misinformed. > >> >> >> >> > [quoted text clipped - 130 lines] > should be illegal because of that, then logically, you have no choice but to > think that alcohol should also be illegal. I'm not going to argue that at all but have you ever seen anyone in the throws of "physical" alcohol addiction? The alcohol argument is irrelevant I believe, should it be illegal thats not up to me to decide, the people of America decided on setting a moral ground that it was okay with them.
> You *could* point out that marijuana can exacerbate certain pre-existing > mental health problems. But a simple google search using the words "alcohol" > and "psychosis" will prove that booze is equally or perhaps more risky in > that regard. I never denied that. I am walking proof of the effects so I don't have to google anything really.
> You *could* point out the smoking a certain amount of pot will harm your > lungs. But, you'd have to be goofy to use that as a reason to keep pot > illegal, considering what alcohol will do to your liver and pancreas. Goofy? Joe please, I'm actually trying to have a civil conversation is this twice now you've insulted me?
> So, please don't tell me that because YOU used marijuana irresponsibly, it > should be illegal. Honestly Joe you appear to make a lot of assumptions on how "I" feel personally. I know nothing about you as well as you knowing nothing about me. Its one thing to sit & debate issues logically but there are "personal" elements involved as well and while your argument may be sound and does have some good points personal motivations on & how people "feel" about things is an issue that should be respected and not so easily dismissed with what people may feel is a "logical" argument.
Do you have any "emotional" ties behind your advocacy? Have you ever had bad experiences with relatives, loved ones that were devastated by alcohol & drug abuse? Alcohol unfortunately is a societal responsibility so if society is willing to take on the responsibility of legalizing & they think its going to work than my opinion wioll only be that, and I will have no choice to go along with what society decides I suppose.
JoeSpareBedroom - 30 Mar 2009 19:48 GMT >> >> >> >> >> >> You are unbelievably naiive, immature and misinformed. >> >> >> >> >> > [quoted text clipped - 173 lines] > Goofy? Joe please, I'm actually trying to have a civil conversation is > this twice now you've insulted me? It wasn't a personal attack. Rather, I chose to blow away all the usual arguments I've heard before, just in case.
>> So, please don't tell me that because YOU used marijuana irresponsibly, >> it [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > they think its going to work than my opinion wioll only be that, and I > will have no choice to go along with what society decides I suppose. My brother-in-law died as a direct result of drinking too much. He got tired of lectures every time he ended up in detox at a local hospital. One night, he decided he could do it himself. Delirium tremens can do strange things to the heart. That's what killed him.
Any other questions?
ByTor - 30 Mar 2009 22:27 GMT > >> >> >> >> >> >> You are unbelievably naiive, immature and misinformed. > >> >> >> >> >> > [quoted text clipped - 202 lines] > > Any other questions? Nope.
Scott in Florida - 30 Mar 2009 22:05 GMT >You obviously don't live in a fog, unless you are about to claim that >marijuana is harmful, and especially more harmful than alcohol, a legal >drug. It is.....
 Signature Scott in Florida
JoeSpareBedroom - 30 Mar 2009 22:12 GMT >>You obviously don't live in a fog, unless you are about to claim that >>marijuana is harmful, and especially more harmful than alcohol, a legal [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Scott in Florida Not according to anyone who knows what they're talking about. Show the source of your belief, diaper boy.
Jeff Strickland - 30 Mar 2009 21:58 GMT >>> You are unbelievably naiive, immature and misinformed. >> >> Yeah, I'm the dumbass. Right. > > Tell me why the violence stopped when prohibition of alcohol was ended. Apples and oranges. No comparison.
Drinking was legal (assuming minimum age was met) throughout human history once we discovered how to distill stuff into alcohol. Drugs were never legal.
We had a large population that maintained a thirst for alcohol after Congress passed Prohibition. That large population, and the relative ease of distilling at home, provided the means and opportunity to continue the consumption of alcohol even after it was banned. Alcohol was widely thought to be a socially acceptable activity, drugs are only socially acceptable among a very small minority. So, Prohibition was rendered an unworkable situation because of the sheer numbers of those that never accepted the do-gooders' intent to clean everybody up. Nobody ever accepted -- okay, very few ever accepted -- drug use as socially acceptable, so drug laws stand the tests of enforcement.
Drugs and alcohol are entirely separate issues.
JoeSpareBedroom - 30 Mar 2009 22:18 GMT >>>> You are unbelievably naiive, immature and misinformed. >>> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Apples and oranges. No comparison. Nothing in your response explains why the violence stopped when prohibition of alcohol ended.
> Drinking was legal (assuming minimum age was met) throughout human history > once we discovered how to distill stuff into alcohol. Drugs were never > legal. You said drugs were never legal. You're an idiot. Go do some research, then come back and fix what you said.
> We had a large population that maintained a thirst for alcohol after > Congress passed Prohibition. That large population, and the relative ease > of distilling at home, provided the means and opportunity to continue the > consumption of alcohol even after it was banned. Alcohol was widely > thought to be a socially acceptable activity, drugs are only socially > acceptable among a very small minority. Once again, you are pulling "facts" out of your a.s. Let's focus for the moment on marijuana alone:
"Like it or not, marijuana is a massive industry. One hundred million Americans admit to government survey-takers that they've used it, with nearly 15 million acknowledging use in the past month. That's a huge market -- exceeding the number of Americans who will buy a new car or truck this year, or who bought one last year. Estimates based on U.S. government figures have pegged marijuana as the No. 1 cash crop in the United States, with a value exceeding corn and wheat combined."
> So, Prohibition was rendered an unworkable situation because of the sheer > numbers of those that never accepted the do-gooders' intent to clean > everybody up. Nobody ever accepted -- okay, very few ever accepted -- drug > use as socially acceptable, so drug laws stand the tests of enforcement. See above. You're full of sh.t.
ByTor - 29 Mar 2009 23:51 GMT > > http://mediamatters.org/items/printable/200903270036 > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Mexico, then the solution to the problem is to restrict our right to own > guns. Yes, "never let a serious crisis go to waste" to push agendas philosophy. (Rohm Emanuel)
> Fox News was expoloring the other side of the story by interviewing the > front-line agents on the border. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > south, the drug lords still have better weapons than the Mexican Army and > police have. Jeff Strickland - 30 Mar 2009 00:38 GMT >> > http://mediamatters.org/items/printable/200903270036 >> > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > philosophy. > (Rohm Emanuel) Exactly.
Point of Order I think it Rahm Emanuel.
|
|
|