Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-05-2012, 11:48 PM
 
Location: San Francisco, CA
15,088 posts, read 13,452,870 times
Reputation: 14266

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by plwhit View Post
So in the progressive liberal world one must have the exact same logic on everything?

Figures
In the intelligent world, one should have consistent logic in all cases where it applies.

In the not-so-intelligent, hypocritical world, you get answers like the ones we see in this thread...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-06-2012, 12:21 AM
 
Location: Georgia, on the Florida line, right above Tallahassee
10,471 posts, read 15,835,178 times
Reputation: 6438
Maybe they can have "shooting" ranges for the harder drugs. "Meth user to box number 2, Meth user, you're up.""
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2012, 06:27 AM
 
30,065 posts, read 18,670,668 times
Reputation: 20885
Quote:
Originally Posted by Savoir Faire View Post
I've heard gun advocates argue against banning guns because people who want to get them, including criminals, will get them anyways. Well can't you make the same argument for drugs?

I can just as easily get any type of drug as I can get a gun. So why is it that some supporters of gun rights who use this particular argument oppose legalization of drugs?

Now I'm not talking about other arguments for gun rights, I'm talking about this particular argument.

There is not a constitutional amendment to use drugs. However, if people want to use them, that is thier own business. Just don't make me pay for the medical bills that arise from that habit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2012, 07:32 AM
 
47,525 posts, read 69,707,823 times
Reputation: 22474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frozenyo View Post
I don't even think the conservatives responding realize the question was meant to expose their hypocrisy.
Or yours.

You people that say we can't have laws against drugs because that just encourages the black market sales of them, would have to admit that it would be the same for guns.

As far as the Second Amendment, that is the best reason but only if someone actually believes in the Constitution and liberals don't believe in it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2012, 07:42 AM
 
5,524 posts, read 9,939,933 times
Reputation: 1867
Quote:
Originally Posted by Savoir Faire View Post
I've heard gun advocates argue against banning guns because people who want to get them, including criminals, will get them anyways. Well can't you make the same argument for drugs?

I can just as easily get any type of drug as I can get a gun. So why is it that some supporters of gun rights who use this particular argument oppose legalization of drugs?

Now I'm not talking about other arguments for gun rights, I'm talking about this particular argument.
I get the point that you are trying to make except for one glaring difference. The Constitution does not give the right to get high.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2012, 07:53 AM
 
79,907 posts, read 44,210,872 times
Reputation: 17209
Quote:
Originally Posted by mohawkx View Post
Since I believe in the SCOTUS decision concerning the 2nd amendment that guns are an individual right subject to reasonable restrictions, then I must defer to the same logic for drugs. Banning guns in certain areas has not reduced gun crime and we all know that banning drugs has not reduced their usage. Both should be legal but subject to reasonable restrictions. Determining what constitutes reasonable restrictions is the fly in the ointment, though.
It's just incredible the logic sometimes.

So, since the Constitution actually says that owning guns is a protected act and the courts have enforced that, we then must apply this to whatever else we want protected even though there is no basis for it?

I say this as one who does not have a problem with making pot legal but the arguments for it sometimes make me reconsider.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2012, 08:59 AM
 
Location: Dallas
31,290 posts, read 20,744,889 times
Reputation: 9325
Quote:
Originally Posted by mohawkx View Post
Anybody who doesn't realize we've lost the war on drugs has spent the last 25 years in a closet.

Correct. And yet we plod along with this war that wastes thousands of lives and billions of dollars every year. Maybe when our war gets as bad as Mexico's war on drugs people will wake up.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2012, 09:01 AM
 
Location: Dallas
31,290 posts, read 20,744,889 times
Reputation: 9325
Quote:
Originally Posted by tluv00 View Post
I get the point that you are trying to make except for one glaring difference. The Constitution does not give the right to get high.

The constitution also does not give the government power to tell me what I can eat, drink or smoke.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2012, 09:15 AM
 
14,292 posts, read 9,680,436 times
Reputation: 4254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Savoir Faire View Post
I've heard gun advocates argue against banning guns because people who want to get them, including criminals, will get them anyways. Well can't you make the same argument for drugs?

I can just as easily get any type of drug as I can get a gun. So why is it that some supporters of gun rights who use this particular argument oppose legalization of drugs?

Now I'm not talking about other arguments for gun rights, I'm talking about this particular argument.
I'm at a loss for words here, you have truly outdone yourself when it comes to turning issues on their heads, twisting and contorting beyond recognition, just so you can form another moronic argument.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2012, 09:18 AM
 
14,292 posts, read 9,680,436 times
Reputation: 4254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking2003 View Post
The constitution also does not give the government power to tell me what I can eat, drink or smoke.
Does the constitution ban rape, murder, incest, kidnapping, insanity, suicide bombings, stoning, decapitations?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:39 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top