Why Is Marijuana Banned?

[Restorium2]

I am done arguing with you Norb.  Make a gun thread and direct your conversations there is my suggestion.

 

Resto and I have also had unpleasant words in the past... move on man, move on.

 

 

Maaaaa! He touched me... well he touched me 1st. but he, but heeeee, but HEEEEEEEEEEEEEE DID IT FIRST!!!

 

 

Be the bigger person... someone... please.

 

 

 

 

 

Edit to add;

 

I have been catching flack for speaking out like this 'now that I am a Forum Leader'. HU?

 

My response to that is;

 

Take a look back at my posts through the years WAY before I was a mod.

You'll find that I have been asking people to be more pleasant to each other all along.

 

I see it hasn't worked so maybe I am the one who should stfu.

In the grand scheme I think you are a fine poster and moderator. No one is perfect. Just keep trying to be better each day. I do that but it's probably hard to tell. If you can put aside old spats and praise the other party you know you are making progress. 

[Highlander]

If there are already countries like you want......

And before that the biggest threat was someone blowing up a school.  No guns involved.  Largest violent attack on a scholl wa like 100 years ago and it was done by blowing it up.  The byproduct of psychotropic drugs is what we have with the school shootings.  Riddle me this, if these psychotropic drugs can cause thoughts of suicide why can't they cause thoughts of homicide?  Most of these shooters were supposedly on these drugs.  So we take away assault rifles, which weren't used in most of these assaults, and people use other things.  Well your not getting to the root of the problem and there is no way to get all the guns off the street so your just waiting for the next one to happen, quelling people's outrage by making more laws to make more victimless crimes meaning more criminals and more intrusiveness into your life.  cause they have to pull you over to catch you with a gun.  So now you are telling me we have to give up our right to privacy.  Then you'll say it's because of what he read that radicalized them and take away websites and books.  All for something that came about because of something OTHER than the guns because they were there all along.  So something else changed but you'll strip every right for that little sense of false security when it was the gov't banning drugs that led to the uptick in violence and it was copycats and psychotropic drugs that caused these mass shooting, and politicians nasty rhetoric, as in the planned parenthood shooter.  But go ahead take away my guns or make it harder for me.  It won't do you a bit of good though and it'll just get worse.  The US is not in any way like Japan(they have culture and shame), Canada(well they're all around pussies:) That's a joke, there's a lot of land and multi lingual cultures etc. lots of land and resources and open space, and they aren't the strongest country, etc. allthough I hear from my canadian friends it was getting much worse up there by way of american influence in politics, and whatever other country you talked about. 

  In those countries they don't hand out mood altering drugs like pez.  They aren't going thru a grab of wealth from the middle class.  There are a bunch of things different about those countries and us and they ALL contribute to the violence seen in the US.  Remove guns from people who would use them for defense and you are giving the upper hand to the gangs.  All the guns they use are ALREADY illegal.  They get them from teh black market.  Taking away guns and not taking away the reason for the violence will just leave the violence and illegal guns that are already there.  You should watch the documentary on guns in the us that talks about the repair shops in teh jungles of different countries, 3rd world countries with no where near the amount we have here.  It will show u that it's just like drugs with pistols.  They do crimes here and get smuggled to SA and then get used there for a while and then get shipped back to the US.  If a criminal wants a gun they will get it.  Same as drugs, why would you think it'd be any different?  Just saying I don't buy it doesn't fly, thosse countries are VERY intrusive or just aren't like the US.  In canada the gap between rich and porr isn't the same and they have programs and huge taxes that cover their healthcare etc.  The drug problem isn't as bad hence the gang violence isn't as bad.  Either way a lot comes down to culture, how much the gov't oppress', drugs.  It's not strictly guns because we didn't always have the same gun violence rate and since the 90's suicides have been on the rise and homicides and gun violence in general have been in decline.  So why we have to ban any guns when most people using them are either getting them illegally(just make it priority to go after guns, no need to ban anything) or already have them legally.  If someone shows violence who has never shown violence, what kind of law is going to help that?  What bigger better background check is going to help.  There are already lots of guns, too many to do anything about.  If you make them illegal they just go up in price and in a broke country they will not be turned in.  No one registered theirs in NYS.  If you try and ban them now it will bring it to a head and lots of people will die.  I would not want to be a cop in NYS trying to walk to someones house to take away a weapon.  I don't think any of the State Police would, they were all against the ban in NYS too.  They aren't stupid, they know vets who would not stand for getting their weapons taken away, some of them are those vets.  You really have to look at the problem, look at the gun nut websites.  I think that would be the straw.  Right now people can move to states that think like them, if they all tried, well they wouldn't it just wouldn't happen.

 

Well, I asked where you draw the line?

 

Should ordinary citizens have legal access to the same weapons the US military has access to?

 

You may have a good point that ordinary citizens should be able to have handguns and assault rifles. 

 

But, again, where do you draw the line? 

 

Is it OK for an ordinary citizen to have legal access to naplam and 50 cal weapons? 

 

I remember a few years ago when a B-17 bomber landed at the small community airport in Flushing, Michigan. 

 

Should an ordinary citizen be able to buy a B-17 and outfit it with 2,000-pound bombs?  And stage said aircraft and bombs at a community airport?

[Restorium2]

I really do understand Norby. He takes the stand that we can't stand to lose a single gun right because of the Slippery Slope. It's just that simple. You can explain it in very few words. The more you go into it the more it gets muddy. If we can just keep it at that everyone can relate. Many think that if we ever head in the direction of any gun control at all it will be the beginning of the end of having any gun rights at all. None of us can see the future. There are folks that would definitely advocate for total gun control to the point of not having any at all. I doubt they will ever have enough power to do anything with folks like Norby watching out. 

[Norby]

Well, I asked where you draw the line?

 

Should ordinary citizens have legal access to the same weapons the US military has access to?

 

You may have a good point that ordinary citizens should be able to have handguns and assault rifles. 

 

But, again, where do you draw the line? 

 

Is it OK for an ordinary citizen to have legal access to naplam and 50 cal weapons? 

 

I remember a few years ago when a B-17 bomber landed at the small community airport in Flushing, Michigan. 

 

Should an ordinary citizen be able to buy a B-17 and outfit it with 2,000-pound bombs?  And stage said aircraft and bombs at a community airport?

Yes, Yes, Yes and Yes.  Who can afford a b-17?  Trump?  Who would sell them the bombs?

I can go and make nepalm now and I have a 50 cal(muzzleloader)

And when someone buys a bunch of nepalm if drugs were legal and cops could focus on actual threats, they could watch said individual. But not letting them buy it makes them sneaky and possibly able to get away with it.  You need to use info to stop things, if not you swing too big of a net and your freedoms and privacy get smaller and smaller.  If we didn't spend so much on defending ourselves from other countries maybe by not inserting ourselves so much in the world that we have a huge target on us, we could probably get better results just legalizing everything and tracking sales.  No registration, maybe training classes, definitely mandatory training, but again how many people are going to be able to load up a b-17, they have to file flight plans, and fly around with bombs.  If drugs were legal the fly time looking for MJ could put f whatevers escourting such a plane around any time it flies and vaporizing it if they tried anything.  

And of course you would have to regulate bombs like that being only at private airports owned by said individual.  How much would it cost to own an airport a b 17 could take off from?  What about the security so that no one shoots one with a 50 cal and blows up the plane?  Sorry some of the suggestions are just non issues from where I stand.  What's the difference between nepalm I mix up with gas and soap?  What's the difference if I can buy enough black powder, fertilizer and soap and fireworks to do it anyway?  You think that buying such an item as opposed to making such an item is a deterrent?  Look at the rich genius who drove up and shot people in cold blood.  He had NO biolence anything and had the cash to blow stuff up but he drove around and shot people.  These deterrents to our freedoms aren't as much of a deterrent as tehy are taking away our freedoms.  So no lines, just a different, more effective way of dealing with these threats.

[Highlander]

Yes, Yes, Yes and Yes.  Who can afford a b-17?  Trump?  Who would sell them the bombs?

I can go and make nepalm now and I have a 50 cal(muzzleloader)

And when someone buys a bunch of nepalm if drugs were legal and cops could focus on actual threats, they could watch said individual. But not letting them buy it makes them sneaky and possibly able to get away with it.  You need to use info to stop things, if not you swing too big of a net and your freedoms and privacy get smaller and smaller.  If we didn't spend so much on defending ourselves from other countries maybe by not inserting ourselves so much in the world that we have a huge target on us, we could probably get better results just legalizing everything and tracking sales.  No registration, maybe training classes, definitely mandatory training, but again how many people are going to be able to load up a b-17, they have to file flight plans, and fly around with bombs.  If drugs were legal the fly time looking for MJ could put f whatevers escourting such a plane around any time it flies and vaporizing it if they tried anything.  

And of course you would have to regulate bombs like that being only at private airports owned by said individual.  How much would it cost to own an airport a b 17 could take off from?  What about the security so that no one shoots one with a 50 cal and blows up the plane?  Sorry some of the suggestions are just non issues from where I stand.  What's the difference between nepalm I mix up with gas and soap?  What's the difference if I can buy enough black powder, fertilizer and soap and fireworks to do it anyway?  You think that buying such an item as opposed to making such an item is a deterrent?  Look at the rich genius who drove up and shot people in cold blood.  He had NO biolence anything and had the cash to blow stuff up but he drove around and shot people.  These deterrents to our freedoms aren't as much of a deterrent as tehy are taking away our freedoms.  So no lines, just a different, more effective way of dealing with these threats.

 

My concern lies with the likes of Muqtada al-Sadr in Iraq, a guy who was wealthy enough to form and support his own militia.

 

I know a dude who just bought a twin engine Cessna 421 for $460,000.  He stores the plane at Bishop Airport and is licensed to fly it himself.

 

If we look at the issue as "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns," we also have to accept the opposite side of the coin....that if no weapons are banned, only rich folks will have high-powered weapons.

 

A B-17 in common hands is unusual.  But then again, I watched a private owner land one (and then take off) at Dalton Airport in Flushing (a privately-owned local airport used by club members but also anyone who wants to land and refuel) on a runway just shy of a mile.

 

Then, look at the small group of old guys who purchased the USN destroyer ex-USS Edson DD-946 and had it shipped to Bay City as part of the new Saginaw Valley Naval Ship Museum.  I did some work for these guys when they were trying to buy the ship from the USN inactive naval shipyard in Philly.  The ex-Edson has been completely demilitarized - guns plugged with steel and barrels cut off and welded to the deck.  But when I was in Philly, I got the chance to briefly walk the ex-USS Charles Adams, same destroyer class as the ex-Edson.  This ship was in bad shape but was not demilitarized, and other groups of folks were trying to obtain it from the USN.

 

I know, I know...ordinary citizens is possession of a B-17 or US Navy destroyer is kinda far-fetched, but it does happen.

 

I'm not comfortable with either extreme.

 

I'm not anti-gun at all.  I'm just trying to look at all sides of the discussion and settle on my own opinion as to what the happy place is in between.

[Highlander]

Ha. Since we are already waaay of topic, I'll share a fun story.

 

I did many hours of volunteer work helping the Saginaw Valley Naval Ship Museum (SVNSM) work through the EPA and USN red tape to get approval to bring the ex-USS Edson from the inactive USN shipyard in Philly to Bay City.

 

One day, I was at the museum after the ship was finally moored at its current home on the Saginaw River, just north of Bay City.

 

I was in the museum modular office trailer on-shore when (former Chief Petty Officer) and President of the SVNSM Mike Kegley went around the room and introduced each of the volunteers (most of whom were veterans or spouses) and explained what each person contributed.

 

Kegely skipped an old man who was sitting quietly in a chair and clutching a wooden cane. I jokingly asked Kegley, "What did this guy do?" Kegley replied, "He's a retired Admiral. He can do what he wants."

[trichcycler]

I wonder when citizen ownership/possession of assault weapons is banned  if we'll continue to arm our enemies here and abroad with them anyhow.

[Norby]

I really do understand Norby. He takes the stand that we can't stand to lose a single gun right because of the Slippery Slope. It's just that simple. You can explain it in very few words. The more you go into it the more it gets muddy. If we can just keep it at that everyone can relate. Many think that if we ever head in the direction of any gun control at all it will be the beginning of the end of having any gun rights at all. None of us can see the future. There are folks that would definitely advocate for total gun control to the point of not having any at all. I doubt they will ever have enough power to do anything with folks like Norby watching out. 

Kind of but it's much more than that.  And they did pull an assault weapons ban in the middle of the nite in NYS while I was "on watch".

 

I did say that everyone who owns a pistol should be trained and permitted.  It's using the stats not just imposing laws.  Every day there is an example that no amount of laws would've prevented.  I personally think that every person should be trained in weapons and also have to put time in the civilian conservation core, learning to live in the woods and work with power tools and be more self sufficient.  i think everyone should have pride in their country and put in time helping the country to create a world where less people want to shoot each other or none of it works.  It's more about not putting in a law that some punk will ignore but it keeps an 80yo from being able to protect themselves from said punk.  Cops are not going to be there when you need them, they can't be everywhere.  I think that civics should be taught and that you have a responsibility to protect yourself in some way.  Hard to get across in words on a page and I don't have time now to get more in depth.

[Highlander]

I wonder when citizen ownership/possession of assault weapons is banned  if we'll continue to arm our enemies here and abroad with them anyhow.

On one hand we arm our enemies. On the other we have exported our technology to them. We gave the Germans and Japanese our manufacturing technology after WWII. Within about 30-40 years, the Japanese and Germans turned this against us and beat us at our own game by about 1980. Ford and GM were mass producing shyyt cars. Toyota, Mercedes, and VW were churning out some of the most reliable cars in the world.

[Norby]

My concern lies with the likes of Muqtada al-Sadr in Iraq, a guy who was wealthy enough to form and support his own militia.

 

I know a dude who just bought a twin engine Cessna 421 for $460,000.  He stores the plane at Bishop Airport and is licensed to fly it himself.

 

If we look at the issue as "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns," we also have to accept the opposite side of the coin....that if no weapons are banned, only rich folks will have high-powered weapons.

 

A B-17 in common hands is unusual.  But then again, I watched a private owner land one (and then take off) at Dalton Airport in Flushing (a privately-owned local airport used by club members but also anyone who wants to land and refuel) on a runway just shy of a mile.

 

Then, look at the small group of old guys who purchased the USN destroyer ex-USS Edson DD-946 and had it shipped to Bay City as part of the new Saginaw Valley Naval Ship Museum.  I did some work for these guys when they were trying to buy the ship from the USN inactive naval shipyard in Philly.  The ex-Edson has been completely demilitarized - guns plugged with steel and barrels cut off and welded to the deck.  But when I was in Philly, I got the chance to briefly walk the ex-USS Charles Adams, same destroyer class as the ex-Edson.  This ship was in bad shape but was not demilitarized, and other groups of folks were trying to obtain it from the USN.

 

I know, I know...ordinary citizens is possession of a B-17 or US Navy destroyer is kinda far-fetched, but it does happen.

 

I'm not comfortable with either extreme.

 

I'm not anti-gun at all.  I'm just trying to look at all sides of the discussion and settle on my own opinion as to what the happy place is in between.

I agree about not being comfortable with it, I'm not either but I'm sure some aren't comfortable with me either so I err on the side of caution.  I also see that as more of a societal problem that people are able to get that rich.  No one is worth that much more in this society.  If you didn't have a janitor the whole place would get dysentary and die.  Not that they are worth equal pay but not that much more.  I'd trust, well not anymore, but I'd have trusted my grandfather flying around with a b17 and I'm sure i'd trust a lot of other ww2 vets in tehir younger years if a team of them decided to chip in and own one.  I'd actually feel better if our older soldiers were better armed and active.  They seem to have an integrity that's much needed to watch over our govt. i don't trust a darn one of them as much as our country has been sold off along with our rights.  The only reason ak's and such are costly is because gun manufacturers had to move out of NYS after the ban and the demand has gone thru the roof.  I got my AK and 1000 rnds for $600  before Sandy hook, actually before 9/11.  After Sandy hook the 1000rnds cost over $600.  And when you have an "investment bubble" like that it only goes higher as people buy them for investments for after tehy get banned from being made.  people are investing in guns like gold, and then you have the prepper movement that got big 8-10 years ago.  Still have my 5 gallon nitrogen filled sealed rice and beans.   I've been eyeing the 50cals at the shows for 2-3k.  I don't know where I'd ever shoot one though.  My ww2 sniper rifles move downed trees when I shoot into them.  Those were $150ea. though.

 

My own opinion has come to the point of progressing to a "enlightened" culture doesn't come from standing on the backs of the citizens neck it comes from the ability to have that power over others and choosing not to use it.  You can't law us into a better society and trying to do so actually pushes the opposite of what you are trying to accomplish. The first thing you have to realize is that nothing short of locking people in their houses will completely stop all of this.  Statistically more people have been commiting suicide which is slowing the drop in gun violence.  But gun violence has been declining even with the uptick in suicides since the 90's, steadily.  The main reason for gun violence is territory and robbery to buy drugs or related to money and drugs.  Next is alcohol.  So considering these are the true underlying causes getting rid of them would put us close to UK, canada and japan.  Taking out the suicides, which have to be dealt with in mental health changes.  Gun laws won't prevent any of those.  They'll just push them into the overdose or cutting their wrists.  you will see a slight drop because some just can't do it without something quick like a gun, but none of this solves the pain and suffering, whether or not the suicide rate falls.

 

It's scary to live in a free society because it means that people can do more but i think that more is gained that makes up for it.  After years of being oppressed I've kinda fell to teh side of siding with freedom.  People have to take care of themselves if it's crazy, cops can barely keep things from happening in sane times.

 

But I totally see where your coming from.  I don't even have problem with anti gun people as long as they realize that their laws won't accomplish anything substantial.  Just don't , not aiming this at you, but i just don't like when people try and tell me that my facts are wrong or somehow dissillusion themselves or think I'm wrong.  I don't care if someone just doesn't like guns as long as they use that as the reason they want all of them gone and outlawed.  I completely respect that type of person even though I may joke about them.  I respect it.

Edited February 27, 2016 by Norby