RobertNashville

Is there something wrong with being rich? Is there something wrong with being richer? I'd like to be rich...to most of the population of the world any person currently standing in the United States is rich...should we be sorry??? Maybe I just don't understand but I sort of think that, as long as someone doesn't do something illegal or immoral to get it, being rich is a good thing and something to be admired and emulated. Also, what yesterday really did was show just how stupid and how bigoted and how reprehensible some of the left-wing wack-jobs really are and it brought a huge number of like-minded people together to offset a wrong being committed.

I don't mind if you want to have a discussion about legalizing/regulating narcotics as it relates to states vs federal abilities to legalize/regulate but you really should do so with someone else because I'm not interested in that discussion - I'm interested in a discussion about whether narcotics use should or shouldn't be regulated; if that's not what you want to discuss that's okay. I see nothing in this thread that gives me reason to think that the use of narcotics is a "right" and if it isn't a right (stated or unstated) then it can be regulated without violating a right. I've seen opinion but no evidence to support the idea that making narcotics use legal/unregulated would be prudent or that it would be good for society or that it wouldn't cause far, far more problems than we already have. Therefore I see no reason why narcotics should be legal and/or unregulated because I see unregulated narcotics use as a clear danger to me personally and to society at large.

Very true.Just yesterday (early evening) I was sitting in my vehicle in a Starbucks parking lot on West End (waiting for a fellow TGO member as a matter of fact) when a fellow approached me and asked me for a handout...he was almost "on me" before I realized he was there. I did, however, have time to reach for and have my hand on (but not expose) the G21 I had with me before he actually reached the window...I simply said I couldn't help him and he moved on. After it was over, I realized that I simply wasn't paying enough attention to what was going on around me and I had to acknowledge that had his intention been hostile, I could have been in a very bad situation. I guess we just have to keep practicing.

Which doesn’t change the simple fact that narcotics use is not a “right†protected by the Constitution. Moreover, I see nothing to make me believe that the use of narcotics is a “right†at all. I’ve read the constitution many times…maybe I’ve just missed it but I never seen narcotics mentioned. Anyway, where in this thread, other than your own posts, did you even get the idea that this thread had anything to with state’s rights? I don’t think the thread goes there at all. Even if it did it would be a strange direction to take… the use of certain narcotic drugs is illegal under STATE law, I think in every state in the U.S. as well as illegal under Federal law so it seems to me the more beneficial discussion should be wehther they should or shouldn’t be legal/unregulated; not what government entity should or shouldn’t do the regulating. I don't really think we have a lot of crime happening because of the abuse of sugar or caffeine...do you have any stats on that? If we make the possession of any firearm and the possession of any drug completely legal and unregulated and we’ll only lock up those who abuse/misuse firearms or drugs would that be okay with you? I have a feeling our prisons will have a lot more drug abusers in them than they will those who misuse their firearms but in any case, it's what the abusers do before the get to prison that is really the problem. So, if the use/abuse of narcotics is not a "right" (which I think it is not) and if the use/abuse of narcotics caused harm to others (which I contend it does) then I believe that society has both the authority and the duty to act to mitigate that harm. As I said, alcohol abuse and addiction is pretty damn bad. On the other hand, I haven’t found any stats to show that we have a lot of alcoholics victimizing innocent people to support their habit so no, I don't think that's because alcohol is a cheap fix that can be purchased legally with ease in most locations. I reckon it’s because alcohol is less addictive to most people than are narcotics. I reckon that for those who are addicted to alcohol, the absence of an alcohol “fix†is less likely to drive someone to crime to obtain money to buy their “fix†to avoid the significant mental and physical drive for the person addicted to a narcotic. I don’t put a lot of stock in anecdotal stories...I suppose because a story can be found that will support whatever position a person wants to support...I suppose I've also had too many statistics classes to trust a single (or even a few) individual stories. However, putting that aside for the moment, have you actually followed all these CEOs, CFOs, CIOs, ADAs, LEOs, other people that you once observed using illicit “hard†drugs to know what direction their lives took? Have you looked at the effect of their drug use on their families/those close to them?I’ve seen people use LSD...I’ve seen people use cocaine…is assuming they didn’t have a problem after that one time I saw them using a reasonable basis to reach a decision about the effects of long-term use of narcotics? It’s not unfounded but I’m not sure what makes you believe that drugs becoming suddenly legal would become less expensive; the free market will charge the highest price the market will bear. Moreover, those who abuse drugs tend to have little money because they tend to not have or can’t keep a job so whether their hit costs $5 or $5,000; if the user doesn’t have the $5 what difference does the price make? I could just as easily say that but I wouldn’t believe it…I didn’t say people are “waiting on the sidelinesâ€, however, if you want to contend that making something as significantly, albeit momentarily pleasurable and addictive as a narcotic easily available to anyone who wants them would it would not foster greater use by larger numbers you can contend that but I find little logic in the contention. I’m not confused at all, you are simply arguing something I’m not.If narcotics should be legal/unregulated then they should be legal/unregulated...if they shouldn't be then they shouldn't be; I don't give a rat's a** what government entity does or doesn't do the regulating and I’ve seen not reason presented to support the idea that they should be legalized

I agree and I didn't say otherwise...I was just making an observation about how rapidly things have changed.

Tread carefully...you are dangerously close to presenting so many facts that you are going to make some folks feel uncomfortable.

It was homosexual radicals, the press and government leaders who brought politics into the "business"; this event was to support the innocent party who was being harmed by those acts.

I don't think there is a single major religion in the world that accepts marriage between two homosexuals as morally acceptable so I guess in your opinion, only those who have no religions convictions at all is not a bigot???If my religion teaches that the color of the sky is green and I fervently believe that the color of the sky is green; does it actually hurt anyone at all?

Exactly who's rights were infringed? How does an opinion held by one person infringe on the rights of anyone else to do whatever the hell they want to do? If I think people should do or not do "X", does the simple fact that I think that in any way prevent someone from doing it?

I've herd that statement many times but while it sounds good it has some problems. When you say we might as well legalize it because what we are doing it isn't working, it suggests stopping what we are doing will have an insignificant impact to society. While that could be true, I don't know of any evidence to show that it might be true. I would say it's as lest as likely that legalizing drugs will result in a large negative impact to society...more drug use...more drug addicts...more crime to support the increased addictions. Also, when you say it isn't working what is the definition of "working"? If by working you mean that all illicit drugs haven't been kept out of the country or that all ancillary crime hasn't stopped then, I agree, it isn't working. On the other hand, you could say the very same thing about any law you care to look at. Murder, rape, robbery, assault, burglary, embezzlement...we have laws against all of them but we still have all those crimes being committed...should we just legalize all those crimes too? Laws do not and cannot stop or prevent crime...we have laws to define what is a crime...to set boundaries so that society can function. If murder is so dangerous to society that it needs to be considered an illegal act then it needs to be an illegal act...If use of narcotics is so dangerous to society that it needs to be an illegal act then it needs to be an illegal act. How successful we are at stopping the crimes is irrelevant to the issue of whether it should or shouldn't be a crime. Or put another way, you fight wars the need to be fought...you fight them to win but you don't only fight the ones you can win.

I didn’t say it was exhaustive but there is still, at the moment, noting in it about narcotics use being a right. Yuup....that's what it says...did this thread turn into a State’s rights issue and I missed it? I thought we were just discussing the overall concept of whether drug use should or shouldn't be legal/regulated, not the specifics of who has/should/has the right to issue regulations. We are wrong to have most regulations on arms; that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have regulations on narcotics. Alcohol abuse and addiction is pretty damn bad. On the other hand, I haven’t found any stats to show that we have a lot of alcoholics victimizing innocent people to support their habit. In 2002 in the U.S. about a quarter of convicted property offenders in local jails had committed their crimes to get money for drugs…among State prisoners in 2004 the pattern was similar, with property (30%) offenders committing their crimes for drug money. In Federal prisons property offenders (11%) were less than half as likely as drug offenders (25%) to report drug money as a motive in their offenses. In 2004, 17% of U.S. State prisoners and 18% of Federal inmates said they committed their current offense to obtain money for drugs. There is little that is similar about occasional long-term use of liquor and long-term use of narcotics because it is possible and most people do drink alcohol and aren't alcoholics. While I don't have time to look up the stats, if memory serves, narcotic users are fare more likely to become addicted and addiction is where most of the problems really begin. The part about the free market coming into play is nice but all conjecture...I could just as easily say that wilder availability of narcotics will lead to fare more addicts...addicts have a difficult time keeping a job and tend to not have a lot of money so even if drugs become less expensive it doesn't mena they'll have the money to pay for them which means they'll find other ways to get it...other ways that usually hurt other people. Yes there is, one is a protected right; the other isn't. if it is always and only "private" they don't...the infringement happens when it doesn't stay "private" and it happens enough that for the benefit of society I believe narcotics must and shoudl be illegal whether it's the Stat or the Fed or both who does it.My freedom is impacted when drug users commit more crime to get money to feed their habit...or because they can't hold a job and take my taxes in the form of welfare or cause my health insurance rates to go up because they need more medical care and can't pay for it or because my taxes have to go to pay for the prisons that house them after they've committed their crimes to obtain money for their drugs.

In the post I replied to, you had indicated that there were a lot of people incarcerated for "minor" drug charges..."minor" usually indicates a misdemeanor and people generally don't spend a lot of time incarcerated for a misdemeanor...your friend's experience sort of bears that out. Also, a traffic ticket can easily land you in jail for a few hours (just like your friend) and easily cost you more than a couple grand (just like your friend) and I KNOW that to be true (and that's as much as I'm going to say about that here). I appreciate your service and I'm sorry about your injury.I've hear various and contradictory things about marijuana's medicinal value...I don't know who is right and who is wrong but if it were completely legalized tomorrow (treated the same as alcohol) or could be distributed as a prescription it would be fine with me.

I thought I was pretty clear that I'm talking about narcotics...I've said at least once in this thread that I don't care about marijuana

The right to keep and bear arms is a right recognized by and plainly stated in the Constitution that specifically says it shall not be infringed; I don't see anything like that with regard to narcotics. On a perhaps more practical/societal level; one can own and/or use firearms without ever harming himself or anyone else around him and in fact, they can and often are used for very positive purposes (protection, hunting, sport/enjoyment, etc). I suspect that you would be very hard pressed to cite many examples where long-term use of narcotics had anything close to a positive impact on the user. However, if that was as far as it went (i.e. only impacting the user) I'd probably be okay with people destroying their minds with whatever drug they wanted....the problem is, it doesn't stop there. Show me a long-term user and you'll almost always find that the person didn't just destroy his own life but severely negatively impacted those around him as well as society as the addict victimizes others to support his addiction. People should be free to do pretty much anything they want to do but when their freedoms starts impacting/infringing on the freedoms of others, it is reasonable for the state to inject itself into the issue...some might even say the state has a duty to do so.

Nothing I suppose; is that a problem? I frequently see posts from members who basically quote another member's post in total and gives a thumbs up or something to show agreement. That's pretty much what I did there...I suppose one of the reasons I did was because I don't agree with DaveTN very often.

I doubt that is accuarte...in most (and maybe all) states, simple possession of marijuana is no more serious than a speeding ticket. I've no problem with marijuana being legal to distribute as a prescription drug to be used for medical purposes; other than that I don't see a rational for change.

A little while ago I almost posted something very similar to these thoughts...I had even written it out but decided that I didn't need the headache it would likely cause me coming from all those who would think that I wasn't enlightened enough to understand why legalizing drugs would be a good thing.

When I was in school, the only "cell phones" we knew about was Dick Tracy's wrist watch and Captain Kirk's communicator...now our kids have them 24/7. Overall, I think being able to instantly communicate to you child or he with you is a good thing; I just have to sit back and reflect sometimes.

I'm going to be there today for dinner (as I don't have time to wait in lines for breakfast or lunch). The restaurant near me is a bit out of the way so I don't eat there very often but I'm going to change that.

Jeff Cooper would probably say this guy "gave up" long before the event happened...that that the choice to fight and to stay in the fight needs to be made a long time before that "moment" in time when the s**t is happening. The way this seemed to have happened, it would be a tough to avoid it...perhaps, had the victim been at least in condition yellow he might have spotted the potential trouble before it was on top of him and been able to avoid or prepare (and leaving an establishment at 12:30 AM I'd probably already be near "orange" simply because it's a parking lot late at night). For me personally, even when I'm carrying on my body I always have another weapon secured on the seat beside specifically so that I can easily access a weapon in a situation like this (as getting it out of the holster while I'm sitting down and likely with a seat belt on can be a problem).

There aren't many things that would be more stupid than legalizing drugs although in Mexico's instance, the drug thugs were pretty much in control and it was effectively "legal" anyway I suppose. Mexico and quite a few other countries in Central and Sough America need some democratic revolution similar to our own from England...I don't expect it to happen but that's what they need.

I hope you are wrong...no...I pray you are wrong. I think and I hope that there are some Wasningtons and Jeffersons and Madisons out there but I fear we don't have enough time left for them to be of help.

I am certain that there are truly people who are exactly what I think you are describing...they are open minded and wanted to support someone they could believe in and are disillusioned with the two candidates because they don't see a significant difference between the two. I've been disillusioned and disappointed too; Romney not only wasn't my first choice for the nomination; he didn't even make it to third. Nevertheless I'll be contributing to his campaign and voting for him in November. However, after these many, many threads on this same general theme, my impression is that most of the "Romney isn't good enough" threads are being started by folks are not just people disillusioned with the two candidates bur are, actually, hardcore Paul supporters who are pissed off that Paul didn't win the nomination and won't be President. As a result, threads like this are posted every few days which are really just a way to vent at all the "sheeple" who aren't smart enough to have supported Paul. They are not open minded and one of the significant differences between where I am not and where there are now is that had Paul won the nomination I would have supported his campaign and would have been just as happy to have voted for him in November as I am not willing to vote for Romney...I don't believe the reverse is true at all. Now, I could be absolutely, 100% wrong in my interpretation of what/who is behind these threads and if I am; well then I am. Whether I'm right or wrong, it does seem pretty clear that there really is nothing to gain by my participating in these threads any longer. It just seems to piss people off so I'm going to do my best to just bow out.

Hypocrite much? Before we go on, perhaps we should quote the entire post you take such offense to... I'm sure that linking to the Huffington Post as if it was a legitimate source for facts was just a joke. My "response" to your link was not exactly a response and wasn't even directed to you; it was was directed to 6.8 AR as a reply to his comment and was offered as a joke; it was a joke at your expense but a joke nevertheless. I thought it was clear that it was a joke but since I apparently offended you then I apologize. I've definitely been personally criticized and even personally attacked for opinions I've expressed...however, I really don't recall being personally criticized for posting a link. I suspect hat if I went back and looked I could find an example or two where that has happened but I don't see much point in looking...I mean; what if I found 100 examples where I've been "personally criticized" for a link I had posted...what would that prove???Not long ago I received a negative iTrader rating from someone I had never traded with because of something I said about the Martin/Zimmerman case...does that make any difference? It seems odd to me that you would feel so "personally criticized" by me when I wasn't replying to you in the first place....it also seems odd that you would wait almost a whole day to bring it up...even more odd that you would reference a post in a different thread to make your point. I wonder; do you feel as "personally criticized" by 6.8 AR?

I believe (and for good reasons) that Obama is the most dangerous enemy to all (not just 2A) our liberty and freedom that this country faces right now; leaving him in office for another team is simply not acceptable. I believe for a number of reasons that Romney will be a good President - whether some folks think Romney is "different enough" or "good enough" is immaterial to me because it's either Romney or it's Obama; I find that to be a very easy choice.