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.
Judging by all the recent threads on guns, it appears that this board is overwhelmingly against more restrictive gun laws. People will cite numerous statistics (which are true) detailing how places like Chicago and DC which have very restrictive laws have some of the highest gun crime rates in the country. Gun laws are a complex issue with many sides to be taken note of.
Now, one could probably say that most of the people against more gun laws lean to the "right". The "right" also seems to be the side where the majority still support the current drug war taking place. I can make this claim due to the fact that most of the states which currently have medical or decriminalized marijuana laws (and 2 states which have outright legalized it) are democrat or left-leaning states, and the states with the harshest and most draconian marijuana laws are all republican or right-leaning states.
So my question is this: If more restrictive gun laws don't seem to work and do nothing to keep guns out of people's hands, then how can drug laws work? Obviously using that same logic, drugs will still be widely available, as they are.
So how can you argue against prohibition-like gun laws yet be FOR prohibition-like drug laws?
(and we won't even go into the hypocrisy on these same people advocating for smaller government and more personal liberty)
And before you attack me, I don't consider myself "left" or "right". I didn't vote for Obama and I don't really care to engage in sport's team politics like the rest of this board. Just asking a simple question.
Actually, I think drugs should be legalized, (albeit with their sales heavily regulated.). I've come to the conclusion that the illegal drug business is more problematic than the actual drug use.
Laws don't mean anything to a person intent on committing a crime, no matter what it might be.
Drugs are illegal in the US yet anyone can buy them.
Make guns illegal and see how quick they become readily available from the same people who bring you the drugs.
Location: In a Galaxy far, far away called Germany
4,300 posts, read 4,331,366 times
Reputation: 2387
Laws do work - unless that law involves banning. There are common sense things that can be made into law to help greatly reduce gun violence. I am a gun owner and I have high quality trigger locks on all my guns. A high quality lock or safe will go along way in stopping the theft of the weapon. Background/mental health checks on every gun transaction (including gun shows and personal sales). These are two things, that if made into law, could help. You can't always keep guns out of the hands of those who want one illegally, but some things you can do to make it harder for them.
Laws don't mean anything to a person intent on committing a crime, no matter what it might be.
Drugs are illegal in the US yet anyone can buy them.
Make guns illegal and see how quick they become readily available from the same people who bring you the drugs.
So nothing should be illegal because nothing can be prevented 100% of the time? How about rape? A person content on committing rape isn't concerned with the law. Should rape be legal?
So nothing should be illegal because nothing can be prevented 100% of the time?
Laws and penalties keep honest people honest... except maybe some drug laws which are often even skirted by otherwise honest people. The point of course there is people out there that are not going to follow the law no matter what it is. If someone is willing to commit the very major crime of murder carrying around a concealed gun that has been banned doesn't give them a second thought.
As far as the drug laws go I'd agree to legalize. If it isn't obvious the "War on Drugs" is a lost cause you need your head examined.
So nothing should be illegal because nothing can be prevented 100% of the time? How about rape? A person content on committing rape isn't concerned with the law. Should rape be legal?
I seriously doubt that anyone is "content" on rape
Drug laws - most should be done away with. Make the softer drugs such as marijuana legal yet regulated, much the way that alcohol is. I feel pretty much the same about cocaine and heroine. More damage has been done to society in general from the war on drugs than would ever be done by legalizing these drugs and educating people on the possible consequences of their use. Not to mention the fact that if regulated and taxed our federal revenue would increase substantially. Flip side of the revenue increase, we'd no longer be wasting billions of taxpayer dollars on a completely ineffective "war on drugs".
Gun laws - a couple of laws need to be tightened up, such as including mental health checks on new firearms owners and possibly mandating a training curriculum for the same. Prohibition legislation does not work, as has been proven from past and current legislation relating to alcohol and illegal drugs. However, I'm sure that there are some citizens in Mexico that would love to see a ban on firearms since it would drastically increase the number of goods that they could supply to the black market. Of course, they'd probably be getting their inventory from our federal government, which may increase revenue as well....
Now, on to your question Frozenyo. Exactly which amendment gives someone the right to brutally assault another individual? Also, at what point has anyone said that rape or any other type of assault should be legalized? Once again, both sides of the aisle are showing their inability to use common sense when discussing any topic which they oppose.
Now, one could probably say that most of the people against more gun laws lean to the "right". The "right" also seems to be the side where the majority still support the current drug war taking place. I can make this claim due to the fact that most of the states which currently have medical or decriminalized marijuana laws (and 2 states which have outright legalized it) are democrat or left-leaning states, and the states with the harshest and most draconian marijuana laws are all republican or right-leaning states.
So my question is this: If more restrictive gun laws don't seem to work and do nothing to keep guns out of people's hands, then how can drug laws work? Obviously using that same logic, drugs will still be widely available, as they are.
So how can you argue against prohibition-like gun laws yet be FOR prohibition-like drug laws?
If gun laws don't work, then how can you say that drug laws do?
Simple. Drug laws don't work. Virtually anybody who wants illegal drugs can get them quite easily.
And the war on drugs is supported by idiots on the left and right including Obama.
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.
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.
