XCR Forum banner
61 - 80 of 95 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,039 Posts
Mostly agree, but the vast majority of inmates incarcerated for drug offenses are in there for selling, not using (though they may also use). People who sell drugs such as heroin, crack, etc. are preying upon the weak. Like other criminals, they don't give a crap about the physical and social destruction they bring upon the lives of others. They're predators that need to be in jail.
Just like the people who sell trans fats and high sugar sodas? Or alcohol and cigarettes?

Just because I choose not to drink sugared sodas DOES NOT mean I have a right to incarcerate you if you CHOOSE to do so. Your body--your choice.

I may think you are making a lousy choice. That certainly does not give me a right to FORCE my choice upon you, or incarcerate you if you disagree with my forcing my choice on you. When I decide something is good for me, that doesn't make it good for you. You have a right to decide for yourself--even if I think you're being foolish.

Incarcerating people who make different choices will end up with incarceration for those who choose not to be vaccinated. Are you sure you want to be on that side?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
140 Posts
Sorry...they are NOT preying on the weak. They are providing a commodity to a paying customer who WANTS it. And that user/customer should be personally responsible for his own well-being....not his dealer. Dealers do NOT need to be in jail for providing the product the addict wants anymore than the liquor store owner should be for providing it to alcoholics.
Just because someone sells to another who buys, it doesn't mean the seller isn't engaging in predatory behavior. It takes addicts and the predators who sell heroin, crack, meth, etc. to kill over 100,000 people each year. The addicts can't do it by themselves. Their deaths would not happen without the drug dealers who make money at their expense.

Just like the people who sell trans fats and high sugar sodas? Or alcohol and cigarettes?
No, because the vast majority of people can still make rational decisions about using those products in moderation. Nobody who uses heroin, crack, meth, etc. does so rationally exercising freewill.

The root of the debate is where to draw the line and the slippery slope it creates. I think you have to draw a line. There are plenty of ways to make a productive living that benefits others. Drug dealing isn't one of them. I would never sell a product that I believed was harmful to another when used properly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,039 Posts
The root of the debate is where to draw the line and the slippery slope it creates. I think you have to draw a line.
Why do you think you have to draw a line for everyone else? I draw lines for myself (and my children). And that's it. I'll leave it everyone else to draw their own lines. Line drawing always involves judgements. Judgement is particular to individual humans. I don't have a right to substitute my judgement (i.e. where I draw the line) for yours.


There are plenty of ways to make a productive living that benefits others. Drug dealing isn't one of them. I would never sell a product that I believed was harmful to another when used properly.
Serious question. Does that mean you wouldn't be willing to sell alcoholic beverages or cigarettes? And would you be in favor of banning those products?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,804 Posts
Discussion Starter · #65 · (Edited)
Just because someone sells to another who buys, it doesn't mean the seller isn't engaging in predatory behavior. It takes addicts and the predators who sell heroin, crack, meth, etc. to kill over 100,000 people each year. The addicts can't do it by themselves. Their deaths would not happen without the drug dealers who make money at their expense.


No, because the vast majority of people can still make rational decisions about using those products in moderation. Nobody who uses heroin, crack, meth, etc. does so rationally exercising freewill.

The root of the debate is where to draw the line and the slippery slope it creates. I think you have to draw a line. There are plenty of ways to make a productive living that benefits others. Drug dealing isn't one of them. I would never sell a product that I believed was harmful to another when used properly.
This ^ is the exact problem in this country. People are not ideologically consistent. They believe in bodily autonomy and right to choose when it's them, but when it's someone else....whose choices they don't agree with....well, then the state ought to step in and put a stop to all that free will going on. It's unbelievably hypocritical.

Predatory? Yeah, those addicts are being FORCED to buy that crack.....it's not their fault. <-cop out and a shirking of responsibility. It's an example of the victimhood mentality that is crippling this country.

More ideological inconsistency: The "right" typically says they believe in taking personal responsibility for one's actions/choices. They also claim to believe in self-sufficiency, but in truth.....it praised Trump for getting those basketball players who shoplifted in China back to the US without prison time rather than letting them reap what they sowed. This drug thing is no different. Drug users made bad choices and became addicts. The number of 100K a year is being artificially suppressed by a social safety net and EMTALA legislation that should be removed....the number, frankly needs to go higher to give people very tangible examples of 'this is what NOT to do with your life'.

That's the nature of addiction. You don't stop until you want to.....but the user has to want it. Or better yet, never start.

Look at tobacco use in the US. Why has it gone down drastically? It's not because we outlawed it or taxed it to high heaven. It's due to education as to the health ramifications as well as the social stigma of use. A similar policy toward drugs will yield far better results than the 50+ years of the War on Drugs that has been an abject failure by ANY standard one chooses to investigate....unless the goal was actually to create a way to circumvent the 4th Amendment, create all sorts of financial laws regarding cash transactions and possession (controlling your means to earn a living), grow the prison for profit system, lay claim to our bodies in the easiest way first....before making claims on healthcare, nutrition, conscription, vaccine status, sexual partners, etc....and militarize police as the enforcement arm of government tyranny to ensure the citizens know their place and accept that the government owns us; not the other way around.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
140 Posts
Why do you think you have to draw a line for everyone else? I draw lines for myself (and my children). And that's it. I'll leave it everyone else to draw their own lines. Line drawing always involves judgements. Judgement is particular to individual humans. I don't have a right to substitute my judgement (i.e. where I draw the line) for yours.
Sorry, but your idea of laws existing without the moral judgment of citizens is a fantasy, especially when it comes to those who prey upon the weak. People who sell heroin, crack, meth, etc. to addicts are evil at their core. They're right up there with human traffickers, child molesters, murderers, etc. The vast majority of people simply will not tolerate such evil being allowed to exist unchecked in society. Would you still feel the same if someone sold heroin to your child?

Serious question. Does that mean you wouldn't be willing to sell alcoholic beverages or cigarettes? And would you be in favor of banning those products?
Good question. I would be willing to sell alcohol to adults (18+) who are not alcoholics nor prevented from consuming due to a conviction of some sort. The vast majority of people who drink do so responsibly and it doesn't negatively impact their lives. I would personally never sell cigarettes to anyone because they're unhealthy with no positive benefit. That said, they don't destroy lives like heroin, crack, meth, etc. People who smoke generally live productive lives like most non-smokers. Overall, cigarettes just don't get to the point of creating societal destruction like the hard drugs. Because of this, I don't think the force of government is warranted when it comes to selling cigarettes to adults.

You are channeling Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez. ;)
There's no need to be insulting. I could respond in kind, but it wouldn't be productive. The fact is that your position on drug usage and letting predators out of jail is closer to hers than mine.

This ^ is the exact problem in this country. People are not ideologically consistent. They believe in bodily autonomy and right to choose when it's them, but when it's someone else....whose choices they don't agree with....well, then the state ought to step in and put a stop to all that free will going on. It's unbelievably hypocritical.
I'm very ideologically consistent, but I'm also in touch with reality. Others do not need to be preyed upon by evil people in order for me to be free.

Predatory? Yeah, those addicts are being FORCED to buy that crack.....it's not their fault. <-cop out and a shirking of responsibility.
It is their fault, just like it's the fault of the dealer for selling to them. It takes two.

Drug users made bad choices and became addicts. The number of 100K a year is being artificially suppressed by a social safety net and EMTALA legislation that should be removed....the number, frankly needs to go higher to give people very tangible examples of 'this is what NOT to do with your life'.
This is just a fallacy. We don't need to give others the opportunity to kill more people in order for us to be free.

That's the nature of addiction. You don't stop until you want to.....but the user has to want it.
This is generally true, but it's much easier to stop when there is less around.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,804 Posts
Discussion Starter · #67 · (Edited)
Sorry, but your idea of laws existing without the moral judgment of citizens is a fantasy, especially when it comes to those who prey upon the weak. People who sell heroin, crack, meth, etc. to addicts are evil at their core. They're right up there with human traffickers, child molesters, murderers, etc. The vast majority of people simply will not tolerate such evil being allowed to exist unchecked in society. Would you still feel the same if someone sold heroin to your child?


Good question. I would be willing to sell alcohol to adults (18+) who are not alcoholics nor prevented from consuming due to a conviction of some sort. The vast majority of people who drink do so responsibly and it doesn't negatively impact their lives. I would personally never sell cigarettes to anyone because they're unhealthy with no positive benefit. That said, they don't destroy lives like heroin, crack, meth, etc. People who smoke generally live productive lives like most non-smokers. Overall, cigarettes just don't get to the point of creating societal destruction like the hard drugs. Because of this, I don't think the force of government is warranted when it comes to selling cigarettes to adults.


There's no need to be insulting. I could respond in kind, but it wouldn't be productive. The fact is that your position on drug usage and letting predators out of jail is closer to hers than mine.


I'm very ideologically consistent, but I'm also in touch with reality. Others do not need to be preyed upon by evil people in order for me to be free.


It is their fault, just like it's the fault of the dealer for selling to them. It takes two.


This is just a fallacy. We don't need to give others the opportunity to kill more people in order for us to be free.


This is generally true, but it's much easier to stop when there is less around.
No, you're not. You're making excuses for why you aren't consistent. That's not the same as consistent.

If there's no demand, there's no supply b/c it's not financially feasible or enticing to offer it. Basic economics.

So let's ask the pointed question: Does your ideological consistency include that people should take personal responsibility for the choices they make?

Opportunity? No one is being forced to take illicit drugs.

Generally true? So you believe that outlawing a thing makes it go away.....that's provably untrue. From complete gun control in crime ridden Democratically controlled cities, to Prohibition to the failed WoDs.....

EDIT** And for the record, none of my comments are personal against you; your stance on this topic....yes, but not you as a person. I value your contributions here, we just disagree on this particular point.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
140 Posts
No, you're not. You're making excuses for why you aren't consistent. That's not the same as consistent.
I explained in more detail. It doesn't have to be all or nothing to be consistent. Sometimes principles conflict with each other.

So let's ask the pointed question: Does your ideological consistency include that people should take personal responsibility for the choices they make?
Of course. And, people are responsible for what they do to others, regardless of whether or not the others allow it.

EDIT** And for the record, none of my comments are personal against you; your stance on this topic....yes, but not you as a person. I value your contributions here, we just disagree on this particular point.
I understand that. No offence taken. Talking about what we agree on isn't as much fun.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,804 Posts
Discussion Starter · #69 ·
I explained in more detail. It doesn't have to be all or nothing to be consistent. Sometimes principles conflict with each other.


Of course. And, people are responsible for what they do to others, regardless of whether or not the others allow it.


I understand that. No offence taken. Talking about what we agree on isn't as much fun.
Can you give me an example of when principles conflict in an irreconcilable manner? I can't think of any beyond my own stance on 'gun free zones' at private companies and abortion. While the principle is clear: property owners should be able to dictate terms of access, I do as I please in that regard even though I know it's morally wrong.

Abortion is more murky in that the principle of bodily autonomy must supersede that of the "positive rights" of the unborn child...in spite of my personal religious belief (which I purposefully keep separate from my secular view) that abortion is an abomination.

We differ that people are responsible for "what they do to others" in the case of selling drugs. All the dealer has done is provided what the user asked for. The drugs 'do' the harm to the user....not the dealer. If your argument is the dealer could physically assault the user over payment, etc....that's a different issue; one of battery....but I doubt that's what you were saying.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,039 Posts
Would you still feel the same if someone sold heroin to your child?
Yes. It's my responsibility to raise my children to be functional adults. That includes the ability to make good decisions about what things they put into their bodies (food, medicine, or otherwise). If my child buys heroin, the responsibility (and the failing) is mine. Blaming someone else is just shirking my responsibility (for the upbringing of my children).




There's no need to be insulting. I could respond in kind, but it wouldn't be productive. The fact is that your position on drug usage and letting predators out of jail is closer to hers than mine.
I apologize if you found that insulting. My intention was to make the point that the idea that sellers are 'preying' on their customers is straight out of the AOC/Sanders playbook. When someone sells something to someone else, the transaction is voluntary and mutual. Amazon and Walmart aren't preying on their customers--they're serving those customers in accordance with the preferences of those same customers. Otherwise the customers wouldn't be buying from them.


We don't need to give others the opportunity to kill more people in order for us to be free.
Without naming any specific names, that sounds very much like the arguments for firearm confiscation that we constantly hear from left wing politicians. Is there some logical way that you can distinguish your statement (which I quoted, above) from the arguments being made for gun confiscation/regulation?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,039 Posts
While the principle is clear: property owners should be able to dictate terms of access, I do as I please in that regard even though I know it's morally wrong.
I just don't go those places unless it's important enough to me to go unarmed. Same as private companies requiring masks--either it's important enough to me to wear a mask, or I take my business elsewhere.


Abortion is more murky in that the principle of bodily autonomy must supersede that of the "positive rights" of the unborn child...in spite of my personal religious belief (which I purposefully keep separate from my secular view) that abortion is an abomination.
Abortion is super murky. The issue is confused enough that I default back to 'if it's not clear, no one should be forced', which makes me politically pro choice on this issue (and most other issues, too). If I can't clearly articulate a compelling case for one side to the other, I'm definitely going to be against the use of force to impose one view (even if it's mine). Heck, I'm usually against the initiation of force even when I can articulate a compelling case.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,804 Posts
Discussion Starter · #72 ·
I just don't go those places unless it's important enough to me to go unarmed. Same as private companies requiring masks--either it's important enough to me to wear a mask, or I take my business elsewhere.




Abortion is super murky. The issue is confused enough that I default back to 'if it's not clear, no one should be forced', which makes me politically pro choice on this issue (and most other issues, too). If I can't clearly articulate a compelling case for one side to the other, I'm definitely going to be against the use of force to impose one view (even if it's mine). Heck, I'm usually against the initiation of force even when I can articulate a compelling case.
And that's what I should do...from an ethical perspective. I recognize and accept the hypocrisy of my ignoring said sign. I believe that if you hang such a sign, then I should be able to expect the owner to provide reasonable security for his property. Since I also dont' believe that should be a legal requirement on the property owner, I handle it....discreetly....myself. In AZ anyway, worst that happens is I'm asked to leave. If I do not...I'm hit with trespassing....fair enough. I feel the risk of a citation is worth the rule breaking to help ensure my friends/family's/other patrons' safety. And I also realize I'm morally wrong for disobeying the owner's request/rule.

And that's where I fall, politically....I'm pro choice. Personally, I'm pro life. However, I feel like I have a very clear position on this though I'm the only one to make the argument the way I do (from what I've heard anyway)....and it hinges on a few things: 1) the difference between negative and positive rights and 2) when are rights bestowed on an unborn child?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
140 Posts
Can you give me an example of when principles conflict in an irreconcilable manner?
It happens all the time, though I wouldn't say that they're irreconcilable. You just have to weigh the principles in the situation against each other. Three principles that I believe in are the free market system, people should not engage in activities that knowingly bring harm others (unless they are endangered by them), and limiting the use of government force. When it comes to the selling of drugs like heroin, crack and meth, the violation of the second principle is so egregious, that it has to prevail over the other two.

I can't think of any beyond my own stance on 'gun free zones' at private companies and abortion. While the principle is clear: property owners should be able to dictate terms of access, I do as I please in that regard even though I know it's morally wrong.
Fortunately I rarely run in to this situation where I live. Businesses just don't put up such signs because it's bad for business. That said, I don't think you're wrong at all to enter an area open to the public with your firearm. People have a right to defend themselves with weapons. If another is going to take an action to infringe upon that right, they have the moral responsibility to protect the people they are restricting from predators. So, I don't have a problem with it in places like airports, stadiums, courthouses, etc. because everyone is screened and those disallowing the weapons provide security. I don't believe that people allowing public access to their businesses have a right to take away the right of individuals to defend themselves if they're not going to provide protection for them. After all, that's the point of the right to self defense.

Abortion is more murky in that the principle of bodily autonomy must supersede that of the "positive rights" of the unborn child...in spite of my personal religious belief (which I purposefully keep separate from my secular view) that abortion is an abomination.
Abortion isn't murky at all. The humanity of living human beings is being denied based on their location so that they can be murdered. It's a false dichotomy that the genocide of abortion must be allowed to continue in order for us to be free. You brought up religion and your view that abortion is an abomination. As a believer who believes that I'll stand before God one day, I don't want to explain to him why I went along with the genocide of babies so the government would leave me alone when it comes to other matters.

Yes. It's my responsibility to raise my children to be functional adults. That includes the ability to make good decisions about what things they put into their bodies (food, medicine, or otherwise). If my child buys heroin, the responsibility (and the failing) is mine. Blaming someone else is just shirking my responsibility (for the upbringing of my children).
Raising a child the right way only increases the odds that they'll do the right things. It doesn't guarantee it. They can make poor decisions in spite of our best efforts. I view myself as the protector of my family. If my child makes a bad decision that another takes advantage of which brings significant harm to my child, I will deal with said predator and they will suffer the consequences. I do not need to allow harm to my children so that I can feel morally righteous about being free.

I apologize if you found that insulting. My intention was to make the point that the idea that sellers are 'preying' on their customers is straight out of the AOC/Sanders playbook. When someone sells something to someone else, the transaction is voluntary and mutual. Amazon and Walmart aren't preying on their customers--they're serving those customers in accordance with the preferences of those same customers. Otherwise the customers wouldn't be buying from them.
Very few conservatives or libertarians wouldn't find such a comparison insulting, but I appreciate the elaboration. The difference between what the drug dealer sells and what Amazon & Walmart sell is that the latters' products are generally not harmful to the buyers assuming they're used as directed.

Without naming any specific names, that sounds very much like the arguments for firearm confiscation that we constantly hear from left wing politicians. Is there some logical way that you can distinguish your statement (which I quoted, above) from the arguments being made for gun confiscation/regulation?
Sure. If gun controllers have their way, we will not only be less free, but we'll be subjected to far more criminal and government violence as they try to keep us under their control. Simply put, gun control brings more violence upon the masses, not less.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,039 Posts
Sure. If gun controllers have their way, we will not only be less free, but we'll be subjected to far more criminal and government violence as they try to keep us under their control. Simply put, gun control brings more violence upon the masses, not less.
So you're balancing freedom against societal harm? Freedom to own firearms against harm done by government (and presumably also incidental harm done by private firearms)? And freedom to use recreational substances against the societal harm caused by each specific substance (alcohol causes less harm than alcohol, so ban heroin but not alcohol)?

I'm not trying to put words into your mouth. I just want to make sure I understand your position.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,039 Posts
Raising a child the right way only increases the odds that they'll do the right things. It doesn't guarantee it. They can make poor decisions in spite of our best efforts. I view myself as the protector of my family. If my child makes a bad decision that another takes advantage of which brings significant harm to my child, I will deal with said predator and they will suffer the consequences.
I am responsible for my children, whether or not I exercise complete control over them. It's possible to take responsibility for things even if they aren't your fault.


I do not need to allow harm to my children so that I can feel morally righteous about being free.
I view my children's loss of freedom as a much greater harm to them than the presence of recreational substances in their society. I'm not feeling morally righteous--I'm protecting my children from the harm inherent in a loss of their freedoms. That's my duty as a parent.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,804 Posts
Discussion Starter · #76 ·
It happens all the time, though I wouldn't say that they're irreconcilable. You just have to weigh the principles in the situation against each other. Three principles that I believe in are the free market system, people should not engage in activities that knowingly bring harm others (unless they are endangered by them), and limiting the use of government force. When it comes to the selling of drugs like heroin, crack and meth, the violation of the second principle is so egregious, that it has to prevail over the other two.


Fortunately I rarely run in to this situation where I live. Businesses just don't put up such signs because it's bad for business. That said, I don't think you're wrong at all to enter an area open to the public with your firearm. People have a right to defend themselves with weapons. If another is going to take an action to infringe upon that right, they have the moral responsibility to protect the people they are restricting from predators. So, I don't have a problem with it in places like airports, stadiums, courthouses, etc. because everyone is screened and those disallowing the weapons provide security. I don't believe that people allowing public access to their businesses have a right to take away the right of individuals to defend themselves if they're not going to provide protection for them. After all, that's the point of the right to self defense.


Abortion isn't murky at all. The humanity of living human beings is being denied based on their location so that they can be murdered. It's a false dichotomy that the genocide of abortion must be allowed to continue in order for us to be free. You brought up religion and your view that abortion is an abomination. As a believer who believes that I'll stand before God one day, I don't want to explain to him why I went along with the genocide of babies so the government would leave me alone when it comes to other matters.


Raising a child the right way only increases the odds that they'll do the right things. It doesn't guarantee it. They can make poor decisions in spite of our best efforts. I view myself as the protector of my family. If my child makes a bad decision that another takes advantage of which brings significant harm to my child, I will deal with said predator and they will suffer the consequences. I do not need to allow harm to my children so that I can feel morally righteous about being free.


Very few conservatives or libertarians wouldn't find such a comparison insulting, but I appreciate the elaboration. The difference between what the drug dealer sells and what Amazon & Walmart sell is that the latters' products are generally not harmful to the buyers assuming they're used as directed.


Sure. If gun controllers have their way, we will not only be less free, but we'll be subjected to far more criminal and government violence as they try to keep us under their control. Simply put, gun control brings more violence upon the masses, not less.
I'll need to wait to respond to some of this until after you answer Tom's questions, but the parts I will address....

I do agree that if a business owner isn't going to provide security, then I should be able to step into that role. However, since that isn't required by law anywhere I'm aware of (and I don't at all advocate it should be law), the moral choice is simply to choose another establishment to give my patronage. I don't do that though....instead I selfishly go where I want and take the risk of being discovered carrying. That part is wrong. I also have the choice to boycott companies that put up signs but more importantly inform the owner(s) as to why I'm boycotting them....but frankly, I doubt they'd care.

Agreed. I shouldn't have said murky. It's actually cut and dried now the I really think about it.....according to the parameters I've set for the issue based on current medical technology and the concept of positive rights.

BTW, do you believe positive rights are always, sometimes or never valid, i.e., a 'right' to an education, to medical care, to housing, a living wage, etc.?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
140 Posts
So you're balancing freedom against societal harm? Freedom to own firearms against harm done by government (and presumably also incidental harm done by private firearms)? And freedom to use recreational substances against the societal harm caused by each specific substance (alcohol causes less harm than alcohol, so ban heroin but not alcohol)?

I'm not trying to put words into your mouth. I just want to make sure I understand your position.
It isn't necessary to balance freedom vs societal harm because the freedom to own firearms helps secure our other freedoms and it results in less societal harm than if our right to own firearms was denied.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,804 Posts
Discussion Starter · #78 ·
It isn't necessary to balance freedom vs societal harm because the freedom to own firearms helps secure our other freedoms and it results in less societal harm than if our right to own firearms was denied.
Do you mean only in the case of firearms you don't need to balance freedom vs. societal harm? Seems like in terms of the War on Drugs vs. Legalization....you're saying the opposite.

Are you for repealing NFA?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,039 Posts
Bret, I'm curious if you draw a line between different substances that are currently illegal? Is your line just 'whatever is banned'?

For example, do you feel differently about marijuana (basically non-addictive, probably less damaging than cigarettes) than you do about heroine or methamphetamines (much more addictive, generally more damaging to health).

Do you view marijuana legalization (like Colorado) as ok, or less bad, or just as bad as the effective heroine and meth legalization in Oregon?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
140 Posts
BTW, do you believe positive rights are always, sometimes or never valid, i.e., a 'right' to an education, to medical care, to housing, a living wage, etc.?
Rights are inherent in being a human being. They do not depend on the ability of others to pay. If they could, people who live in wealthy societies would have more rights than those who live in poor societies. Therefore, people do not have inherent positive rights. The whole "positive" and "negative" rights thing is BS anyway. It's just language that was co-opted by statists in order to have a way to justify their use of government power to take from some people and give to others. There are just rights.

Do you mean only in the case of firearms you don't need to balance freedom vs. societal harm? Seems like in terms of the War on Drugs vs. Legalization....you're saying the opposite.
I mean that if you did attempt to look at it from the freedom vs societal harm standpoint, you find that more firearm freedom for adult non-criminals is a societal benefit. It's a societal benefit because it results in less crime and keeps the statists at bay. Note that I said firearms. The 2nd Amendment says "arms". Do individuals have a right to keep nuclear weapons because of this? Well, I could own one and you could own one and literally nobody would be at risk because we wouldn't use them. However, it really wouldn't do anything for my freedom and the potential societal harm would be extraordinary. Ultimately, I don't think there's evidence that the framers meant such weapons should be included in "arms". Of course there's really no way to know because they didn't have a clue that such weapons could exist. They didn't have a clue that TV or radio could exist, so judgement ultimately has to be involved. Ultimately, I think that it's safe to say that the framers would agree that "the people" have a right to the same weapons that their local police department has.

Are you for repealing NFA?
Of course.

Bret, I'm curious if you draw a line between different substances that are currently illegal? Is your line just 'whatever is banned'?

For example, do you feel differently about marijuana (basically non-addictive, probably less damaging than cigarettes) than you do about heroine or methamphetamines (much more addictive, generally more damaging to health).

Do you view marijuana legalization (like Colorado) as ok, or less bad, or just as bad as the effective heroine and meth legalization in Oregon?
I think that a better case can me made for the legalization of marijuana than heroin, crack, meth, etc., but ultimately the damage caused by marijuana far outweighs the very limited benefits. I've seen too many people that have stunted their personal growth because they got in to smoking it. Ultimately, if my opinion is in the minority it'll be legal. I try to persuade people every opportunity I get. It's interesting but sad to hear people talk about how it stunted their personal growth when they were young and the opportunities they missed out on. I've met plenty of people who wished they never used it. I've never met a person who never used it that wished they had.
 
61 - 80 of 95 Posts
Top