The Truth About Gun Control

page: 4
45
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 12:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Donny 4 million
 


Good job on rounding up these statistics!


Don't forget, once your guns are gone, don't think about using bombs or you'll be labelled a "terrorist", so they've got that avenue covered also.




posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 01:25 AM
link   
Hi bigfoot1212,

Ya' know, I couldn't have said it better, myself! They'll have to pry my weapons from my cold, dead hands, before I ever give them up. All "Responsible Americans" should be armed.

As for our "joke of a Government":
I seriously wonder what our forefathers would think if they saw what our Government is like today...The Government was NEVER supposed to be as big as it is...It's out of control! The Government of today is WAY too powerful, too damned greedy, WAY too controlling, and need a serious wake-up call from "We The People".


Side note about Switzerland:
There's a few really nice videos on YouTube regarding Switzerland and it's gun-issues. Very informative, and a great vids to watch. (Sorry, I'm not good at "linking" stuff)



posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 01:32 AM
link   
I mean no offense but this concept of having a gun = the balance of power and such is off. Think about it, if you are armed, they will be more armed. If you think armaments need be ballistic you're mistaken. At this point in time the war being waged on people in the US is anything but about guns. It involves psychological and economic warfare, and a sidearm may give people the feeling of control enough for them to turn a blind eye. These things are less discernible and actually give more power to those in control. Additionally carrying a gun can land you in serious trouble with TPTB if they're looking for an excuse to apprehend you (or worse).
Firearms are outdated anyhow. In any large scale war to occur now, firearms will not be the deciding factor.

Australia has had its guns taken away, and no mass slaughter has happened here.



posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 01:40 AM
link   
I see my point was completely ignored, do you guys just see disagreement and hit reply?! Its about semantics, they're trying to compare the current US weapon situation with complete totalitarian weapons bans!!


reply to post by SkippyDan Groundchaser
 

Where did I say Scandinavia is a country? We often Identify as Scandinavian because we have close history and culture.

reply to post by Blaine91555
 

The #! I never said BAN I said RESTRICTED which they HEAVILY ARE! A lot of us have hunting rifles and shotguns, but everything from assault rifles to submachine guns to handguns are much harder to get license for!(and illegal in Norway, except in specific cases!!!)

There are a lot of gangs here - Hells Angels (in Norway too!), UN gang, various Indian gangs, and yet we do not see there actions a lot, they kill each other, let them so long as they do it in private. If I or an upstanding citizen carries a gun and kills them? How many family members of theirs will die in revenge?!! Its lose-lose

Someone breaks into my house? My first reaction is not kill them, its still a human life, asshole or not. Now hurt them, thats a definite.

Ive been all over, some Natives get treated like #, the reserves are usually #ty, but they get other benefits and scholarships, and most of their poverty is self-perpetuating sad to say. A lot of them feel hopeless and lose energy to make something of their life, because of discrimination and growing up in a slum, everyone alcoholic or drug addict. I have a few native friends.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 

Not disagreeing theres crime or anything!! Do you know how much of it is gang-on-gang? Theres probably a gang member and drug dealer killed every month. Look how many innocent people are actually killed here, its far less, every time there is its all over the news, and we even get news of people killed in Washington if its slow.

[edit on 14-1-2010 by Ridhya]



posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 01:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShiningBeneath
I mean no offense but this concept of having a gun = the balance of power and such is off. Think about it, if you are armed, they will be more armed. If you think armaments need be ballistic you're mistaken. At this point in time the war being waged on people in the US is anything but about guns. It involves psychological and economic warfare, and a sidearm may give people the feeling of control enough for them to turn a blind eye. These things are less discernible and actually give more power to those in control. Additionally carrying a gun can land you in serious trouble with TPTB if they're looking for an excuse to apprehend you (or worse).
Firearms are outdated anyhow. In any large scale war to occur now, firearms will not be the deciding factor.

Australia has had its guns taken away, and no mass slaughter has happened here.


If all you have said was true then both Afghanistan and Iraq would've been cake walks instead of the boondoggles they are. More than 8 years later and an increase in troops is the U.S. strategy. What good has been the psychological warfare in these two countries? You ask that people "think about it" and I would ask the same of you.



posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 01:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Ridhya
 


Do you know how much violent crime in the U.S. is gang related and due to this ridiculous drug war? Please don't make me do another Google search just to back up what would be surely backed up if you insist. Furthermore, do you have any idea how many lives are saved due to armed citizenry that is way too under reported by the very same media that willingly obfuscates and deceives their public by attempting to make violent crime appear as if it is "innocents" that are the victims?

While "innocents", both in the U.S. and Canada, are the victims of violent crime, much of this crime is caused by gang members and drug cartels, or by the police themselves who do their own fair share of killing, mostly criminals, but are also guilty of killing or injuring innocents as well.

I appreciate your more tempered response, this last post. Better to discuss the issue rather than rely upon propaganda on both sides of the issue, no?



posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 09:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 



Originally posted by Blaine91555

Originally posted by countercounterculture
Gun Control Advocate Shoots Intruder

Title speaks for itself..

Hypocracy anyone?

[edit on 13/1/10 by countercounterculture]


Hypocrisy is taking an isolated incident and applying it to everyone. Cars are far more dangerous, I don't see an outcry to ban cars? Hypocrisy, you tell me?

...

You can be sure the loudest leaders of the anti-gun advocates own guns themselves.


That was the point of my post, it was an ANTI gun advocate who shot an intruder.

He sees fit to strip guns from the population but keeps a gun for his own protection??!

Heres the thread covering that incident: www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by NuclearPaul
reply to post by Donny 4 million
 


Good job on rounding up these statistics!


Don't forget, once your guns are gone, don't think about using bombs or you'll be labelled a "terrorist", so they've got that avenue covered also.


Thanks nuclear
Adding a round of thanks for the savy members that have contributed to the awareness of gun ownerdship and safty.
Donny



posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShiningBeneath
I mean no offense but this concept of having a gun = the balance of power and such is off. Think about it, if you are armed, they will be more armed. If you think armaments need be ballistic you're mistaken. At this point in time the war being waged on people in the US is anything but about guns. It involves psychological and economic warfare, and a sidearm may give people the feeling of control enough for them to turn a blind eye. These things are less discernible and actually give more power to those in control. Additionally carrying a gun can land you in serious trouble with TPTB if they're looking for an excuse to apprehend you (or worse).
Firearms are outdated anyhow. In any large scale war to occur now, firearms will not be the deciding factor.

Australia has had its guns taken away, and no mass slaughter has happened here.


You may think that gun ownership would not help balance governmental power but it actually can.
Of course it would take a large number of citizens to be united in whatever cause was at hand.
There was no question what that was cause was 35 years ago. There was also way less talk of gun control then as well.
The silent majority does not have the numbers it once enjoyed. It is still very substantial nevertheless.
If you believe as I do ---that the US and other countries of wealth are under siege by the fundamental concepts of socialistic Communism, then you would understand the need for so many of us to retain our weapons. Not only the right to bare arms but a multitude of other rights that are headed down the slippery slope of anarchy.
Thanks for a sensible response. This is not a one sided issue.
As for Australia, Removing the guns hasn't really changed much but make the citizens just way more vulnerable and unhappy.



posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 09:48 AM
link   
oops

[edit on 14-1-2010 by Donny 4 million]



posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by countercounterculture
reply to post by Blaine91555
 



Originally posted by Blaine91555

Originally posted by countercounterculture
Gun Control Advocate Shoots Intruder

Title speaks for itself..

Hypocracy anyone?

[edit on 13/1/10 by countercounterculture]


Hypocrisy is taking an isolated incident and applying it to everyone. Cars are far more dangerous, I don't see an outcry to ban cars? Hypocrisy, you tell me?

...

You can be sure the loudest leaders of the anti-gun advocates own guns themselves.


That was the point of my post, it was an ANTI gun advocate who shot an intruder.

He sees fit to strip guns from the population but keeps a gun for his own protection??!

Heres the thread covering that incident: www.abovetopsecret.com...


Thanks for posting that link to mnemeth1's thread.
It really is an eye opener.
It seems he shot the guy outside his home. Not inside. That's trouble for the senator.
If you check some other web sites it looks like there is a twisted web surrounding the incident as well.
If the senator would have spent some time educating himself about guns and there use, instead of trying to take ours, the water he finds himself in would be a lot cooler.



posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


I have heard California is overrun with gangs, I can imagine a lot, and not getting reported HERE though probably where you are... what we get here is usually comparison or when innocent people (ie bystanders) are killed in the States it is sometimes on the news here.

In the US maybe they say '4 people killed' but here they always say 'gang members executed' and I dont believe theres been a murder in my or neighbouring cities that HASNT been drug related. Lesson, stay away from drugs.

I hear all the time this site of police killing civilians but its almost unheard of here, and Norway, which is why Im always in disbelief, plus I have known some American police and they were great people. (of course theres always some bad with good, in anything)

Im not relying on propaganda, though you probably wont believe it. I rely on my personal experience, firearms cause more problems than they solve, if you need them for hunting then feel free! but you dont need an M60 to hunt FFS. The propaganda is from both sides, with neither 'side' thinking theirs is propaganda, this whole thread is though. Comparing gun BANS to gun RESTRICTIONS, and comparing modern US to the HOLOCAUST and PURGES, SICK!!!!!

And believe me I am as anti-Luciferian and anti-NWO as it gets, I want armed citizens, I dont want Rambos thinking they're invincible, and with a feeling of power comes corruption, soon as people feel they have an advantage over others, they tend to abuse it, some more than others (maybe like police in your country). Theres nothing wrong with good RESPONSIBLE people, I will guess you are, but how can we be sure?

PS the war on drugs is not evil like so many people bitch, it is the WAY they do it, that wastes money, no progress, plus dont forget your own CIA doing the drug dealing! so it wont stop. You're in a perpetual destruction. Legalising drugs is not the answer, as so many people like to claim, some kind of intermediate would be good. If you made your own, in your home, private do it, I dont care, dont harm others, other police wont care as well (most, anyway). As soon as you deal it harms others, and profits used for funding other criminal activities, its all connected. People always go 'God created this plant for me to use', well then go walk in a bloody forest and find it, dont mix it with meth sell it to kids and buy guns to shoot competition with your profits.

Your laws for drugs and violent crimes/stealing are #ing reversed, what a country. Make stealing and violence HARSH punishments, drug possession minor, theres your solution.

All I have to say is look at Japan as a model. They have ZERO tolerance for guns (unless antique herlooms) and even replica guns. And they have NO CRIME other than the Yakuza. People leave their street stands unlocked, unattended, magazines/food/etc in the open where as here we would never think of it, yet, it doesnt get stolen. So many of you guys seem to think just legalising all guns will solve the problem, well simple solutions simply break, you need to look at society and law first, the problems therein...



posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 11:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Ridhya
 


I appreciate your opinions and encourage you greatly to continue espousing whenever you feel compelled to do so. However, it is merely opinions you are espousing and you don't seem compelled to back them up with many facts. So, before I begin, once again, listing the statistics, facts and figures, offered by various internet sources, I would first like to speak to the irony of some of your opinions.

First, you say you want armed citizens you just don't want Rambo's, which is fair enough, but I can't help see the irony in such a statement given your avatar. Is that not a gun on the snowmobile being ridden by a blood drenched man with a maniacal smile in front of a corpse? I'm just saying...

Secondly, you seem to want to make a distinction between gun RESTRICTIONS and BANS, as if a ban is not a restriction. Further, you continue to bring up the drug issue. Let's first be clear here, I am in no way advocating recreational drug use, however, your continued insistence on framing the violence perpetuated by recreational drug pushers as a problem with drug use greatly over simplifies the problem and misses the point.

Pharmaceuticals rely almost solely upon drugs as a method of making a profit, yet we don't read much about corporate executives, or even low level employees of these pharmaceuticals gunning each other down. Why? Because they tend to sue their competitors in a court of law, relying upon tort law rather than the law of the jungle. Herein lies the difference between "free markets" and "black markets". Of course, when you have "black markets" it is hard to imagine how one can call the open market a "free market" with a straight face.

The violence related to recreational drug use has far less to do with the actual use of drugs than it does the brutal strategies of black marketeers. While you are entitled to your opinion and you can praise the so called "war on drugs" all you want and do your best to ascribe some sort of saintly behavior upon it, those who cherish freedom, and understand that the actual use of drugs as recreation seems to harm no one other than the one using the drug itself, and given that sugar, caffeine, and even foods rich in saturated fats, can be just as harmful as many recreational drugs, it is an arbitrary and capricious prohibition act, and given that this act of prohibition has incarcerated so many people in the U.S., a land that, at least used to, prides itself as being "the freest country in the world", the prohibitions are indeed evil.

With that in mind, let me move on to the statistics, facts and figures and begin with those provide by an organization known as Defending Justice. The figures come from a Google doc that has relied upon Defending Justice's findings. The first set of figures this organization offers are those that illustrate that the U.S. has most recently become the country with the most people incarcerated and the highest incarceration rate of any country in the world!

1.) During 2002, the U.S. prison population exceeded 2 million people for the first time in history.

2.) The U.S. has the highest rate of incarceration at 726 per 100,000 people.

3.) The second highest are Russia, Belarus, and Bermuda all with a rate of 532 prisoners per 100,000 people.

4.) The third is Palau with 523 prisoners per 100,000 people.

5.) Western European nations have much lower rates, with England and Wales at 142, Germany at 96, and France at 91 per 100,000 people.

6.) Many non Western nations also have significantly lower rates, with Cuba at 190 prisoners per 100,000 people, China with 118 and India with 29.

7.) More than three-fifths of the worlds nations have incarceration rates below 150 per 100,000 people.

8.) The current rate of incarceration in the U.S. is higher than the Soviet Union's in 1979, which had an incarceration rate of 660 people per 100,000

These figures alone should put into perspective why many people in the U.S. are comparing the current situation to the HOLOCAUST and PURGES, and you can call it sick if you want, further figures will reveal that this outrageous rate of incarceration in the U.S. has nothing to do with violent crime, nor theft, rape or any other real crime, but has everything to do with this stupid "war on drugs."

The Google doc reporting figures found by Defending Justice.org goes on to state that compared to other industrialized nations, the U.S. has similar rates of victimization. In fact, this report claims that in many areas many Americans are at less of a risk of victimization than their counterparts in other nations. Thus, it can be concluded, that while the U.S. incarcerates much more people than their counterparts in other industrialized nations, this incarceration rate has to be something other than from crimes of victimization.

While the report concedes that the U.S. does have a homicide rate four times higher than most Western European nations and crime rates in general did increase through the 1960's and '70's, the crime rate alone can not explain the six-fold increase in the past three decades. In fact, one study showed that the increase in crime only explained 12% of the increase in incarceration, while changes in sentencing and drug policies accounted for the remaining 88%

Not just the sentencing laws in terms of drug policies, but even burglars will serve an average of about 16 months in prison compared to the five months in Canada, and seven months in England and Wales. In both England and Wales, it is only about 12% of those incarcerated, compared to the 41% in the U.S. that will serve sentences of 10 years or more. Even more revealing are the figures for drug sentences where only 6% of prisoners in England and Wales will serve a sentence of 10 years or more compared to the 27% in the U.S.

Germany has a much lower incarceration rate with sentences averaging 1 year or more, for those convicted of all major crimes with the exception of willful homicide. In terms of the death penalty, there are currently 123 nations that rely upon it, but only the U.S and Iran will sentence juveniles to death. Even such countries as China and Pakistan have ceased this senseless behavior while the U.S. has executed 22 juveniles since 1973.

While you urge me to look to Japan as a model in considering gun restrictions, even though your claim is that Japan has "zero tolerance" for guns, there is indeed a disparity in homicide rates between the two nations. According to Nationmaster.com the U.S. comes in at number 24 for homicide rates with 0.042802 per 1000 people, and Japan comes in at number 60 with 0.00499933 per 1000 people, it is interesting to note that Switzerland comes in at number 56 only four above Japan with 0.00921351 homicides per 1000 people.

That Switzerland, thoroughly discussed in this thread for its obvious endorsement of individual gun ownership has very similar homicide rates as Japan should make clear that your own assertions that it is individual gun ownership and less restrictions of it, that make Japan less homicidal than those nations who abhor restrictions seem rather baseless and only just high handed rhetoric.



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 12:18 AM
link   
You're really going all out to skew what I say, man, and attack my character.


First, you say you want armed citizens you just don't want Rambo's, which is fair enough, but I can't help see the irony in such a statement given your avatar. Is that not a gun on the snowmobile being ridden by a blood drenched man with a maniacal smile in front of a corpse? I'm just saying...


Its a movie. It is not legal to own a MG34 much less attach one to your snowmobile. But as soon as Nazi Zombies attack Norway I will be the first to do it, and with a smile on my face!


Secondly, you seem to want to make a distinction between gun RESTRICTIONS and BANS, as if a ban is not a restriction. Further, you continue to bring up the drug issue. Let's first be clear here, I am in no way advocating recreational drug use, however, your continued insistence on framing the violence perpetuated by recreational drug pushers as a problem with drug use greatly over simplifies the problem and misses the point.

Oy, obviously... I will only say this once, a ban on firearms is not a restriction on them, ban means absolute NONE restriction means LIMITED. A restriction is not a ban as per above, as there is some.

Where did I say I was promoting drug use?! I just explained the reason it causes problems. The fact that there is a market comes the suppliers, maybe it is the market that should stop, and then the suppliers will move on.

Comparing it to pharmaceutical drugs is apples and oranges, there is similarities but it is a different thing. They are for completely different purposes. If you need prescription, well you cant just go to the store buy it to have fun. As for pharma dont get me started I think it is a criminal industry too, and can have the same negative society effects as narcotics!


While you are entitled to your opinion and you can praise the so called "war on drugs" all you want and do your best to ascribe some sort of saintly behavior upon it,

Again I said no such things, you are just skewing. If you actually read my post I said it is not working and need to be changed.

and understand that the actual use of drugs as recreation seems to harm no one other than the one using the drug itself, and given that sugar, caffeine, and even foods rich in saturated fats, can be just as harmful as many recreational drugs

And also the people in the oncoming car, plus stress on family/friends who want you to quit, affected relationships...
Oh plus I have never seen someone on sugar jump off a two storey building and shatter both his legs, and still run a whole block, and I have never seen a person on caffeine think their couch is possessed by a demon and set the house on fire... both true by the way.

and given that this act of prohibition has incarcerated so many people in the U.S., a land that, at least used to, prides itself as being "the freest country in the world", the prohibitions are indeed evil.

and AGAIN I said the jailing of drug possession is wrong, you're just trying to make me out to be a bad guy!! Prohibition is not necessarily wrong, the punishments for it is wrong.

Alcohol is the worst drug of all, when not abused, narcotics like ecstacy PCP are horrible even when 'regulated'. This is for your body. Now, as per society, it is different. If you drink at home, nothing, do drugs at home, nothing, yet then you legalise and go driving after, drugs or alcohol, suddenly there is a huge problem for EVERYONE.

Your facts are great, no ones saying there arent too many imprisoned people, you guys just need to get your punishments and sentences fixed by a lot.

Again, 88% of the increase was due to changes in sentencing, the WRONG way, thats my whole point. Here if you have drug possession it will get confiscated and a fine, you should follow our example.
Our laws are not perfect either, but they're a step better.

If youll notice I used Japan as an example of how strict punishments are a deterrent. Americans like to see things on the surface. My point, Japan attacked the problem at its base, deter the crime from happening. Your point, have a gun so you can defend yourself as-the-crime-happens. You are putting a bandaid on cancer, it solves nothing, the problem is still there!! it just looks pretty is all.

Switzerland has some strict punishments and laws, so they are not proof it works the opposite way. They are like Japan, but with guns, harsh punishment, deterrent, strong society, no poverty, good morals. US has ghettoes, poverty, conditions which lead to crime, AND a lot of guns. I imagine IF Japan is to remove the ban they will be much like Switzerland, this would still not prove guns are flawless, it would prove UNDER STRICT CONDITIONS GUN FREEDOM WORKS. Under current US conditions, it absolutely would be disaster.

WHAT I AM SAYING IS: clean up the underlying problem THEN you can have all the guns you want, until then legalising guns wont help, there will still be crime, remember how the crime rate stayed after Clintons restrictions were changed? Armed citisens did not deter them.

[edit on 15-1-2010 by Ridhya]



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 01:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Ridhya
 


First, pointing to your avatar to illustrate the irony of your words is not an attack on your character...seriously.

Secondly, your examples of oncoming car's and stressed family is just more hyperbole. Never mind this thread is not about drug use,and is wholly about bans on guns, families get stressed over a number of issues besides drug using family members and oncoming cars face a number of dangers outside them as well.

Third, and Oy, I will only say this once! Words come with definitions. Wordnetweb offers this definition for the word restriction:

"confining: restricting the scope or freedom of action"

Bans are clearly confining and restrict the scope of freedom or action.


Fourth,I am not trying to make you out to be a bad guy. You are the one who pointed to Japan as a model in terms of crime, so I countered with quoting statistics of crime comparing the U.S. with other countries, and it was necessary to point out that the U.S. imprisons more people than any other country in the world even though the crime rate is comparable to many of those other countries. It was the U.S. federal and state governments that was made out to be the bad guy.

Fifth, I never said you were promoting drugs. Calm down, stop taking things so personally and re-read what I actually said.

Sixth, comparing the pharmaceuticals to drug pushers is not apples and oranges, it is apples and apple or oranges and oranges and the only difference between them are the statutes of legislation that distinguish them.

Seventh, you first claim that you do not approve of the 88% of strict punishments the U.S. adopted in imprisoning their own citizens and then you turn around and praise the strict punishments of Japan claiming this type of behavior is effective, or as you put it, a deterrent.

You continue on with your pretzel logic in an attempt to dismiss the fact that Switzerland is very much pro gun by claiming Switzerland has laws. All countries have laws, this is why governments are created to enforce them.

I was not at all attempting to prove guns are flawless and on the contrary was pointing out the flaw in your argument that Japan is a good example of how bans on guns reduce crime.

Regardless of WHAT YOU ARE SAYING, if you can't say it rationally and logically, then it should be expected that someone will come along and point out your irrationality and illogical statements.



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 04:06 AM
link   
You werent just 'pointing out' my avatar you were using it as a deflection, my love of this movie is completely irrelevent to the argument.

I KNOW bans restrict freedom, I was saying they are two separate things, a ban is a ban and calling it is a restriction would be an understatement! And a restrictions and calling it a ban is an OVERstatement! That is the point I was trying to make!

As I already said reason drug dealers/vs/pharma is different is because of the reason, oharma drugs are meant to help (though personally I think is criminal, some) vs Narcotics, only purpose is for temporary fix, have no real positives except maybe temporary happiness, which means you can develop an emotional addiction.

I ALREADY went over on the strict punishment saying not for drug POSSESSION, for stealing and violence et cetera. The 88% increase or whatever is from making harsher laws of possession which means bunch of dumb kids walking around get actually arrested, which is a waste. For example famous Amsterdam will have less pointless imprison because they have lax laws on drugs.

Less guns does not *necessarily* mean less crime and on pro-gun side more guns does not necessarily mean less crime. But in the US current situation I would expect it does, infrastructure and societal concerns need a boost before you can just simply say 'no restrictions' AND still maintain safety.



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Ridhya
 


As to your avatar, it was you who brought up Rambo, a movie, to characterize the American gun lover, thus your own avatar has relevance.

How can you say; "I KNOW bans restrict freedom, I was saying they are two separate things..." Do you not see the contradiction in such a statement?

In terms of pharmaceuticals, there are countless commercials, (propaganda), airing on television that urge people to ask their doctors about this drug or that, which offer to help ease the discomfort of anxiety or offer happiness. By your own admission, at least some of these drugs pushed by the pharmaceuticals are "criminal". Conversely, there are several states within the U.S. who have been battling the federal government over medical marijuana rights. For a number of years coc aine was used as a drug to help people until the federal government legislated laws against it. Same goes for heroin and morphine, which morphine is still used to help people.

I know you went over the strict punishment that amounts to an 88% incarceration rate in the U.S. and then you turned around and lauded Japan for their strict punishment policies. It may be clear in your own mind the distinctions you are making, if you are at all, but it has not been so clear in your posts.

Your final example is a good example of writing that may make sense to you in your own mind, but it does not make sense as written.



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 09:08 PM
link   
ATS member Cygnis posted this link on another thread of mine about gun control
DICK ACT of 1902... CAN'T BE REPEALED (GUN CONTROL FORBIDDEN ...
The Dick Act of 1902 also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill HR 11654, of June 28, 1902
invalidates all so-called gun-control laws.

www.knowthelies.com/?q=node/3949 - Similar

I hope this helps.
Donny



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 10:31 PM
link   
CHRIST man I wasnt characterising gun lovers I was illustrating that with greater power people will be more willing for more dangerous acts.

Theres not contradiction in the statement, reread until you understand. If your gov said okay no guns at all youd be pissed, and if they said hey its not a ban its just a restriction, youd be even more pissed.

Morphine does not have the long term negative effects of coc aine, heroin, and much lesser extent marijuana. Any unnecessary pharamceuticals should be removed but the difference is there is some that well actually help people, ie. tylenol, can be abused as well, not as easily though.

My God, how many times do I have to say? Like 4th now? Strict punishment deters crime, strict punishment on stealing and violence. Im just repeating myself, 88% increase was from making stricter possession charges, which I already said should be lessened, you're not even reading my posts, Im done with you.



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Ridhya
 


I am pretty sure you are addressing another member and not me.
As the "Dick Act" has nothing to do with drugs or whatever you are trying to say there. Am i correct?





new topics
top topics
 
45
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join