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.
Nope. Nixon created the federal department tasked with preventing and pursuing drug offenders....
Prohibition of drugs happened in this past but this one would had a bunch more money behind. Then of course Ronald Reagan really escalated with mandatory minimum sentences during the coke and crack epidemic.
Nope. Nixon created the federal department tasked with preventing and pursuing drug offenders....
Prohibition of drugs happened in this past but this one would had a bunch more money behind. Then of course Ronald Reagan really escalated with mandatory minimum sentences during the coke and crack epidemic.
Sometimes I'm amazed that people will post about topics they know nothing about. Seriously, use Google and do some research. It's free.
The war on drugs had been going on for decades before Nixon took office. Compared to Anslinger's rabid anti-marijuana campaign Nixon was a fluffy kitten.
Every time there is a shooting in the US (except Chicago), there is aa call for "new" gun laws.
Can anyone tell me what new gun law would have prevented the Oregon shooting, or any other shooting?
Don't ban guns, but enact a law that if a gun is involved in a shooting, the (responsible) owner is accountable. Can't stop all shootings, but how many times do we hear about a kid getting their hands on a loaded gun, and it goes off, or a psycho or a felon getting their guns from their relative or friend who had them legally?
Since the stance is that "responsible gun owners are not the problem", then holding those who are not responsible seems like it would make a difference. Wouldn't fix all the problems, but it would save lives without trampling on the 2nd.
We already do it with alcohol. If a legal adult serves under-aged kids, and they get in a wreck, the serving adult is held accountable.
Don't ban guns, but enact a law that if a gun is involved in a shooting, the (responsible) owner is accountable. Can't stop all shootings, but how many times do we hear about a kid getting their hands on a loaded gun, and it goes off, or a psycho or a felon getting their guns from their relative or friend who had them legally?
Since the stance is that "responsible gun owners are not the problem", then holding those who are not responsible seems like it would make a difference. Wouldn't fix all the problems, but it would save lives without trampling on the 2nd.
We already do it with alcohol. If a legal adult serves under-aged kids, and they get in a wreck, the serving adult is held accountable.
There are already negligence laws in place for this situation. 99% of the time the DA chooses not to prosecute because the family has already suffered enough trauma. That doesn't help with why laws exist - to be a deterrent. If you know you won't be prosecuted then you take no steps to secure your weapon from your kids. Or like in my case, you don't instill a respect for the weapon and a fear of parental punishment.
In your second scenario, if you are thinking of the Adam Lanza incident, then the mother had her guns secured. He killed his mother to get them. How much more protected do they need to be?
How does coming down on the owner of the firearm or gun shop deter someone from killing people? Every single proposition in this thread would not do a damn thing to prevent murders. Why would someone who intended on mass murder be deterred by someone else getting in trouble? How would the mass murderer be deterred from killing just because the penalty for using an illegal or even legal firearm is 10 years mandatory when the penalty for mass murder is already life or DP? Let me get this straight, a mass murderer plans on carrying out his plan but stops and says, "I can't do this because I'm looking at 10 years for using a gun to commit a crime"? How in the world does that make ANY sense at all?
Sometimes I'm amazed that people will post about topics they know nothing about. Seriously, use Google and do some research. It's free.
The war on drugs had been going on for decades before Nixon took office. Compared to Anslinger's rabid anti-marijuana campaign Nixon was a fluffy kitten.
Again, well aware of drug prohibition prior to the creation of the DEA. Nixon put the might of the federal government behind his war on drugs. There is quite a bit of difference from the creation of the DEA onward, verses the times you are talking about. Did they have militarized police under Anslinger in your free Google research? The security and family values crap is the conservative schtick which led to the DEA and the war on the drugs as we know it.
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.
