Subject:
|
Re: Drugs and guns
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 19 Jul 2001 15:36:06 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
302 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Kirby Warden writes:
> Hmm...I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic directly with me or if you
> were merely adding more humor...
I don't think it was humor. I think he was being snotty.
> Making guns illegal will only make things worse.
Only if you consider a national bloodbath and endless guerilla war "bad." :-)
> Narcotics were only an habitual problem involving a few accidental deaths
> until they were banned...now we've got a multi-billion dollar-a-year crime
> problem...
Ayup! And you know why we won't end the war on drugs? Because the police
support it. You know why? Because it is the most profitable thing to happen
to law enforcement in the history of the world. I read a thing about a year
ago suggesting that the police were actively protecting the drug trade
(producers and dealers) so that they could snatch the property of rich users
and fund their departments and graft.
> When alcholhol was banned, a similiar problem arose...
Ayup! And the alchol problems largely went away. Unfortunately, a bunch of
bad people got rich during prohibition and their social progeny are still
carrying on their legacy of organized crime. But of course it's better than it
would have been if we hadn't repealed that dreadful mistake.
> Do you really think it wise to ban guns knowing the repurcussions of past
> attempts to ban potentialy lethal luxuries?
That seems to be their (The Brits) general stance. They think they know so
much about our horrific gun culture. They only see the bad and don't recognize
the good as existing. And for all their hype about our gun culture, they don't
seem to understand what the result of successful restriction would be.
> Give me a break, the last thing I need is for my life to be turned upside
> down because of some yahoo shooting his illegal gun somewhere on my forty
> acre property...(an opinionated reference to some outrageous narcotics laws).
Rico. (Is it a name or an acronym, and how's it spelled?)
Chris
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Drugs and guns
|
| I don't post much here, but I'd like to say that the criminal will always find a way to obtain firearms, regardless if the society in which he lives has banned them. As for banning firarms themselves? We must remember that one of Adolf Hitler's (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Drugs and guns
|
| (...) RICO. I think it is "Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organizations" or something close to that. It's a great little law if you also like civil forfeiture... (23 years ago, 19-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Drugs and guns
|
| (...) I was replying in kind. Take it as you please, but I wasn't the first. My point was that it's a bad analogy because even with narcotic/alcohol prohibition, the first thing the criminals do is arm themselves. (...) Ah - a smiley. Hmm. Why am I (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Drugs and guns
|
| Hmm...I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic directly with me or if you were merely adding more humor... If, perchance, you missed my meaning here, purhaps I can clear it up a bit... Making guns illegal will only make things worse. Narcotics were (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
11 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
