^^most drugs were legally purchased, eh

8/9/2006 6:07:05 PM

I guess you have no response to my rebuttal of your point that someone'd be "way beyond retarded if [they] can't understand something that simple?"

8/9/2006 6:07:16 PM

To an extent, they are not comparable. As you point out, there are differences in the methods of manufacture which would make it fairly difficult for a person seeking a handgun to make one himself, whereas a drug dealer could fairly easily grow a plant himself (dispite the fact he'd have to find the seeds to grow it with, which you are overlooking).

However, to the extent neccessary the two are comparable. For instance, dispite the fact that many drugs can be grown or manufactured by oneself, just as many drugs are brought in from outside the country where other people do the manufacturing for you.

So, even though many drugs can be manufactured inside this country with relative ease people can still find a huge market to sell drugs from outside the country.

Why will this not happen with handguns?

That is how the two situations (drugs and handguns) can be compared in the way I did earlier, which was refuted with horrible examples.

8/9/2006 6:08:29 PM

^^Gamecat actually i got flood control

but i dont see how your hypothetical situation of a guy trying to buy weed in the late 60s having to "know a criminal" is either a real example or relevant at all

people like you give the criminals the benefit of the doubt

i'm outta here

8/9/2006 6:09:33 PM

I cant see handguns ever having the seductive profit margin drugs have

8/9/2006 6:09:38 PM

yea then why arent other countries where guns rights are more restricted flooded with firearms?

8/9/2006 6:09:39 PM

^^^

Quote :

"i dont see how your hypothetical situation of a guy trying to buy weed in the late 60s having to "know a criminal" is either a real example or relevant at all"

then you're clearly high.

imagine being the same criminal in each situation. did the change of the laws impact how you went about purchasing weed through the years? YES. availability? YOU'RE DAMNED RIGHT. selection? YEP. quality? RIGHT AGAIN.

clearly, changing the constitution can affect how a criminal would get a gun. the 1968 supreme court decision was handed down on constitutional grounds for fuck's sake.

---

Quote :

"dispite the fact he'd have to find the seeds to grow it with, which you are overlooking"

Is he? Some of these drugs are weeds and molds that grow wild; hardly something difficult to get a hold of.

[Edited on August 9, 2006 at 6:14 PM. Reason : ...]

8/9/2006 6:10:00 PM

Quote :

"people will start smuggling guns in....they will swallow ballons full of firearms just you see"

Do you believe that the millions of pounds of drugs brought into this country were all swallowed by little mexicans dancing across the border?

Or maybe your statement here refuting the ability of people to bring guns into the country and possibly also intended to refute the demand for such a service is wrong.

8/9/2006 6:10:50 PM

it was clearly a joke

8/9/2006 6:12:03 PM

Quote :

"then you're clearly high come back and reread it sometime when you aren't. "

no i've been at work the last 10 hours but if i had no point like you i would resort to false blanket statements to cover up my desire to selectively limit constitutional rights because criminals are the good guys and america is bad

8/9/2006 6:13:24 PM

Perhaps those countries don't have the same market for handguns as we do in the United States. You know it is possible to have different cultures, backgrounds, and behaviors of people in two different countries which might cause certain laws to work better in one of the two countries?

You know?

8/9/2006 6:13:34 PM

yes and the reason why the demand for guns is so high is becuase a bunch of idiots are paraniod about criminals with guns thus they provide the means for their own paranoia by bringing in tons of guns to the country

8/9/2006 6:15:06 PM

There isn't goingt o be a huge handgun black market.

8/9/2006 6:15:57 PM

Actually, when you come back and reread this (when you're not stoned), you'll notice that never ONCE have I actually staked out a personal position on gun control or the Constitutionality of it in this thread.

Not at all.

[Edited on August 9, 2006 at 6:16 PM. Reason : .]

8/9/2006 6:16:12 PM

So the people who feel the need to purchase a gun to defend themselves are going to instead not do anything because you outlawed handguns?

These same people are still going to buy a weapon, be it a handgun, shotgun, rifle, semi-automatic, automatic, whatever. People are still going to die.

As I stated earlier, an anti-handgun law will probably cut down on the overall number of guns, but people who want weapons are still going to find them.

8/9/2006 6:19:43 PM

It will become more and more difficult to find guns until its such a small threat

8/9/2006 6:25:15 PM

Gangs in L.A. have AK-47 automatic weapons which are already completely illegal, they were smuggled in from Mexico.

^ They're not that much of a threat as it is.

[Edited on August 9, 2006 at 6:36 PM. Reason : .,.]

8/9/2006 6:35:44 PM

Most places aren't on the mexican border.

Quote :

" ^ They're not that much of a threat as it is."

I'm not the one arguing that there is a need to protect yourself from them

[Edited on August 9, 2006 at 6:46 PM. Reason : .]

8/9/2006 6:46:10 PM

Quote :

"If the government would let me own a gun id kill as many pro-gun nuts as possible"

and with the laws that are already in place, this comment could prevent you from owning a weapon in the eyes of the ATF and court


if anti-gun people knew more about the laws that were in place and about the object they hate so much they could formulate a better argument


but yeah, I like how you liberals are all about some selective rights

8/9/2006 7:38:34 PM

^ No, smcrawff, you're the one arguing we should have cops stop looking for criminals long enough to get guns out of the hands of non-criminals.

I say we shouldn't waste the time and effort.

[Edited on August 9, 2006 at 7:39 PM. Reason : name]

8/9/2006 7:38:42 PM

Quote :

"yea then why arent other countries where guns rights are more restricted flooded with firearms?"

gun crime is on the rise in the UK, despite guns being banned.

8/9/2006 7:55:17 PM

Quote :

"Gun control? It's the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I'm a bad guy, I'm always gonna have a gun. -- Sammy 'the Bull' Gravano"

Gun control is OSHA for criminals.

8/9/2006 9:59:26 PM

Some interesting reading...

http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/4.0/GunFacts4-0-Screen.pdf

8/9/2006 10:06:07 PM

HEY EVERYBODY LOOK AT MY GUN PROPOGANDA WEB SITE

8/9/2006 10:21:26 PM

im perusing it for fun. some of them make sense, some seem dumb. im not surprised.

8/9/2006 11:21:50 PM

Ha. So when it's an article on tww about how a homeowner was successfully able to defend themselves with a gun it's:

Quote :

"Glad guns save one or two home-owners per year."

but when its a few articles on tww about hand gun accidents it's:

Quote :

"that made the news that matched my keyword search that i could find in three minutes"

Hey, without any real statistics to back it up I'd say that more people are killed in gun accidents also, but pretending that one article means that it happens once while saying that a few articles means it happens 1000s of times is ridiculous.

8/10/2006 8:03:47 AM

Quote :

"Hey, without any real statistics to back it up I'd say that more people are killed in gun accidents also, but pretending that one article means that it happens once while saying that a few articles means it happens 1000s of times is ridiculous."

Id think only a complete moron would draw that conclusion. This thread is not a scientific reserach paper, the pulled articles reflect the vast research and statistical facts on the issue. Its not a fucking proof, its an illustration of the stats that any idiot can look up on govrenment web sites.


[Edited on August 10, 2006 at 9:21 AM. Reason : sdfgeqwr2]

8/10/2006 9:20:11 AM

Then feel free to drop this rhetoric any time.

message_topic.aspx?topic=425444

Quote :

"im glad these kinds of events, which happen once or twice every year"

8/10/2006 9:46:22 AM

No, its simple hyperbole.

8/10/2006 9:48:33 AM

Whatever dude.

8/10/2006 9:51:45 AM

Id expect that such a common linguistic device is easily discernable.

8/10/2006 9:55:12 AM

8/10/2006 10:00:12 AM

josh numbers is the biggest troll in the soapbox

8/10/2006 10:02:17 AM

holy strawman loneshark, you suck at reading

8/10/2006 10:06:41 AM

that pdf quotes the 2.5M citizens using guns each year to defend against an attack and then quotes percentages about everything else (which leads me to beleive that they are hiding something, unless they also quote the number).

i wonder how many of these are store robberies, how many are home invasions, how many are armed assault, etc.

i wonder how many times that type of force was necessary and/or where the criminal themselves were armed with a gun. obviously if you pull a gun out, especially on a lesser crime, its more likely to stop (shoplifting for example, though id imagine you'd get in trouble, but its an example).

[Edited on August 10, 2006 at 10:52 AM. Reason : and they beat the 2.5M into the ground, so thats why i wonder]

8/10/2006 10:51:59 AM

all the pussies give the criminals the benefit of the doubt...fucking PC zombies

8/10/2006 11:14:44 AM

i hope u arent referencing my post, cuz im bringing up legitimate questions concerning these supposed gun facts.

8/10/2006 1:58:46 PM

no i'm just generalizing

8/10/2006 2:02:34 PM

good cuz i want to make sure everyone knows that im out to put everyone in danger from the looming criminal threat.

8/10/2006 2:08:51 PM

you may as well say that if you're implying that everyone should rely on the police to protect people

8/10/2006 2:10:25 PM

i wouldnt dare, they are 100% worthless

8/10/2006 2:11:57 PM

Quote :

"LoneSnark: ^ They're not that much of a threat as it is."

Neither are terrorists.

END TERRORIST CONTROL!

Quote :

"pwrstrkdf250: but yeah, I like how you liberalsconservatives are all about some selective rights"

As big a percentage of our incarcerated population as drug users make, due almost entirely to Nixon's War on Hippies, I find it laughable that you'd single out liberals for favoring selective rights.

8/10/2006 3:48:46 PM

painting me with a broad paintbrush huh

I'm for ALL of our rights, not just what makes me happy at the moment


I'm for legalization of drugs too

and I'm still right about liberals and selective rights

[Edited on August 10, 2006 at 3:52 PM. Reason : .]

8/10/2006 3:51:23 PM

nearly everyone is about selective rights or hadnt you noticed.

8/10/2006 3:55:29 PM

yeah it's sad


and not what this country was founded upon

8/10/2006 3:56:45 PM

probably, but 100% do whatever you feel like society wouldnt likely work very well either now would it.

[Edited on August 10, 2006 at 4:00 PM. Reason : im happy with a bit of regulation]

8/10/2006 4:00:19 PM

nothing wrong with regulation


something wrong with taking away rights, no matter what they are

8/10/2006 4:03:50 PM

Then you aren't a conservative.

PM LoneSnark or EarthDogg to get your koolaid.

8/10/2006 4:28:25 PM

I never said I was conservative

and why do I need their kool aid for having my opinion

8/10/2006 4:39:10 PM

They can turn that little "l" into a capital "L"

And honestly, you're acting as if you're a champion of liberty, while your opponents hate freedom.

You're both arguing for regulation of arms (and if you think you aren't, I take it private ownership of nukes is ok?), just slightly different levels of regulation.




[Edited on August 10, 2006 at 4:46 PM. Reason : .]

8/10/2006 4:45:45 PM