PhotonicLaceration
Member
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2005
- Messages
- 72
- Reaction score
- 0
- Location
- Nevada
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
So, here's something that I just don't quite get. Those on the left say we need to outlaw guns. Those on the right often like the war on drugs.
Funny thing is, is that so called liberals defend drugs for many of the same reasons that so called conservatives defend guns. So, what's the deal here? How can two people of opposite political stature be blind about one thing and not the other.
A quick glance at history will demonstrate that the prohibition was useless, and that the war on drugs is a huge failure. A quick look at guns will demonstrate similarity.
People who want something, get it. Criminals don't obey the law, that's why they're called criminals, and bans on contraband are proven ineffective in the free world. You can grow marijuana in your backyard, or make yourself a single shot zipgun in 20 minutes with household supplies, or a machinegun with a welding utility, two tubes of different diameters, several washers, springs and cutting tools in five hours. Even modern ammunition can be reloaded, bullets casted, brass shaped, and the chemicals for improvised explosives in the use of "muzzleloading" improvised explosives created from a trip to the local drug store.
The mafia became healthy because of alcohol in the prohibition, and most organized crime today deals with the importation and production of narcotics. It's no different for guns. That's how the blackmarket thrives, is by importing what the people want.
The Netherlands shows that legalized regulated narcotics results in less narcotics use overall. The supply of guns for criminals is infinite. The vast majority of guns used in crime are stolen from police, imported from other countries, or home-made.
School-based familiarization with firearms in countries such as Israel and Switzerland, who both allow the populace to own fully automatic weaponry have also demonstrated that there is no link to the armed populace and increased crime.
If you took the money that the BATFE and the DEA spent on the war on crime and the enforcement of restrictions on firearms, and used it to educate people of the danger of drugs, and to instruct basic firearms safety courses, and marksmanship it would undoubtedly remove large amounts of crime from that sprouts directly from the supply of contraband. (which can be an EXTREMELY profitable business)
In addition, it would increase the freedom of Americans, who should be restricted by no laws that are unneccessary and innefective.
Funny thing is, is that so called liberals defend drugs for many of the same reasons that so called conservatives defend guns. So, what's the deal here? How can two people of opposite political stature be blind about one thing and not the other.
A quick glance at history will demonstrate that the prohibition was useless, and that the war on drugs is a huge failure. A quick look at guns will demonstrate similarity.
People who want something, get it. Criminals don't obey the law, that's why they're called criminals, and bans on contraband are proven ineffective in the free world. You can grow marijuana in your backyard, or make yourself a single shot zipgun in 20 minutes with household supplies, or a machinegun with a welding utility, two tubes of different diameters, several washers, springs and cutting tools in five hours. Even modern ammunition can be reloaded, bullets casted, brass shaped, and the chemicals for improvised explosives in the use of "muzzleloading" improvised explosives created from a trip to the local drug store.
The mafia became healthy because of alcohol in the prohibition, and most organized crime today deals with the importation and production of narcotics. It's no different for guns. That's how the blackmarket thrives, is by importing what the people want.
The Netherlands shows that legalized regulated narcotics results in less narcotics use overall. The supply of guns for criminals is infinite. The vast majority of guns used in crime are stolen from police, imported from other countries, or home-made.
School-based familiarization with firearms in countries such as Israel and Switzerland, who both allow the populace to own fully automatic weaponry have also demonstrated that there is no link to the armed populace and increased crime.
If you took the money that the BATFE and the DEA spent on the war on crime and the enforcement of restrictions on firearms, and used it to educate people of the danger of drugs, and to instruct basic firearms safety courses, and marksmanship it would undoubtedly remove large amounts of crime from that sprouts directly from the supply of contraband. (which can be an EXTREMELY profitable business)
In addition, it would increase the freedom of Americans, who should be restricted by no laws that are unneccessary and innefective.
Last edited: