Felons and the Right To Bear Arms:

[tombogan03884]

what diffrence does it make what the baned product is?

It doesn't, that's why the failure of the 18th amendment makes the war on some drugs such a stupid waste of taxpayer money, and why THINKING, INFORMED people oppose it as a waste and a smoke screen to infringe our rights.

[fightingquaker13]

what diffrence does it make what the baned product is?

AND THAT'S THE FREAKING POINT TAB!!!!! Ban spinach, and if people want it bad enough someone will get it to them.This goes back to the point I was trying to make in the Catholics vs guns thread. It takes an idealisticlly naieve view of human nature to think we can demonize a product (insert product name here), blame it for x, y and z ills, and then cure those ills by banning it. Remember the Comstock laws that outlawed condoms, as the idea was without contraception extra-marital and pre-marital sex would be curtailed? Its not the product, its the desire FOR the product that is to blame. Prohibition merely means that that desire will find satisfaction in a violent black market.
FQ13

[tombogan03884]

AND THAT'S THE FREAKING POINT TAB!!!!! Ban spinach, and if people want it bad enough someone will get it to them.This goes back to the point I was trying to make in the Catholics vs guns thread. It takes an idealisticlly naieve view of human nature to think we can demonize a product (insert product name here), blame it for x, y and z ills, and then cure those ills by banning it. Remember the Comstock laws that outlawed condoms, as the idea was without contraception extra-marital and pre-marital sex would be curtailed? Its not the product, its the desire FOR the product that is to blame. Prohibition merely means that that desire will find satisfaction in a violent black market.
FQ13

Don't have a stroke FQ,  He's an idiot, the only real use in arguing with him is practice for when you run into a sane person. 

[TAB]

I'm not deamonizing a product, I'm deamonizing the user.

[tombogan03884]

 Either way you are spouting bullshit.

[Sponsor]

[fightingquaker13]

I'm not deamonizing a product, I'm deamonizing the user.

The question is why? You have to ask first is whether the government has the right, morally, to ban it to begin with. Bill Bennet (my least favorite human) put it best when when he said the war on some drugs  was about a crises of authority. Eg., the government told you not to smoke that stuff and so if you do, you are a (rebel, traitor, communist, etc.). No further rationale than that. Might makes right. I'll give you a hypothetical. Let's say we were living in Phils world and the state banned all handguns and you had a pre-1968 hand gun that your grandad bought from a private user in the 1940's (speaking hypothetically of course ). This would make it untracable. Would you turn it in? Would you feel the slightest moral qualm buying it from me? Just askin'.
FQ13

[TAB]

Would I buy it from you, no.  would I trun it in, well that depends on alot of things.  for a gun that I could never use with out risking big time jail time, then yes I would turn it in.  if it was a slap on the wrist, then no.
a felony is not a slap on the wrist.

its like here, all the "fun" fire works are a felony( before you get all huffy about CA, AZ bans them all and NM is also very strick, one spark and we all burn)  would I like to have them?  yep, is it worth the risk?  nope.


its all risk and reward.

[r_w]

There should be a way for EX cons to restore full rights of citizenship--voting and gun ownership included. 

If they can't be trusted in society with a gun (or a knife or a car or...) they SHOULDN'T BE IN SOCIETY!!!

[tt11758]

Bzzzt! Wrong answer, but thanks for playing. The correct answer is more people are killed as a result of prohibition than anything else. Ban beer tommorow and I will bet my AR against an autographed nude poster of Rosy O'Donnel that inside of six months someone will be shot over control of the illegal beer trade.
FQ13

I just threw up a little in my mouth.   

[tt11758]

The question is why? You have to ask first is whether the government has the right, morally, to ban it to begin with. Bill Bennet (my least favorite human) put it best when when he said the war on some drugs  was about a crises of authority. Eg., the government told you not to smoke that stuff and so if you do, you are a (rebel, traitor, communist, etc.). No further rationale than that. Might makes right. I'll give you a hypothetical. Let's say we were living in Phils world and the state banned all handguns and you had a pre-1968 hand gun that your grandad bought from a private user in the 1940's (speaking hypothetically of course ). This would make it untracable. Would you turn it in? Would you feel the slightest moral qualm buying it from me? Just askin'.
FQ13

I thought Sarah Palin was your least favorite human. 


Just giving you some crap, FQ.