Guns vs Drugs: Best Argument on inconsistent regulation policies

[emilynghiem]

I mentioned to my boyfriend when I got home from a community meeting, that as the convener was pulling out of the parking lot, he yelled to me that drugs should be legalized. I didn't have time to elaborate, but just replied that we needed to address the ADDICTION and ABUSE to stop the DEMAND (and Govt cannot do this internal work).

My bf first comment was "does this guy also say guns should be banned?" I said I didn't think so. His point was he found liberals to contradict themselves by wanting to LEGALIZE drugs (and not punish recreational users for the illegal abuses to hook people and get them involved in crimes in order to afford their habits) but when it comes to gun regulations, these same people don't hesitate to regulate or restrict the law abiding citizens along with the criminal abusers they are targeting.

I said the guy was a Green activist who blamed the govt for creating the addiction, instead of people addressing the INTERNAL causes and cures of addiction to REMOVE the demand for drugs; and Govt CANNOT handle or manage any of that process, the PEOPLE have to work on resolving the causes of all drug addiction, and abuse, before these lead to crimes where the govt has to intervene.

But I realized my bf brought up a really good point:
Why do liberal activists want to BAN guns even if this punishes and restricts freedom of law abiding citizens, or at least threatens their freedom.
While pushing to LEGALIZE drugs so that citizens are not criminalized for recreational drug use.

This really is a blunt way of pointing out the double standard, based on someone's political biases and agenda.

Can someone who holds this viewpoint explain to me
why you would want to regulate guns but not regulate drugs.

Is it because you don't feel drugs harm anyone but the person taking them, so they have the right to damage their own brain and become dysfunctional and unable to work to support themselves.

Doesn't that impose on the public?
So if you are for health insurance mandates, and requiring people to pay toward their health care costs, would you hold drug users responsible for paying for their health complications
instead of imposing on people who never agreed to legalize drug use?

If you can answer one or both questions, I'd like to understand
where you draw the line in these cases, and why. Thanks in advance!

 

[DarkFury]

Okay, guns VS drugs. A gun does NOT affect my ability to drive.

 

[Moonglow]

Okay, guns VS drugs. A gun does NOT affect my ability to drive.

It does when you keester it...

 

[MisterBeale]

As always Emily, great post.

You don't belong here, seriously.

You are too rational, too level headed, too non-partisan.


You belong in the 1950's.

You are so sweet. Totally with it.


How about YOU run for president. All the conservatives and liberals will get behind ya.

 

[DarkFury]

As always Emily, great post.

You don't belong here, seriously.

You are too rational, too level headed, too non-partisan.


You belong in the 1950's.

You are so sweet. Totally with it.


How about YOU run for president. All the conservatives and liberals will get behind ya.

You want to take someone you like and throw them into politics?
Training Emily for government?

emilynghiem Have you ever walked through a pit of Vipers? It IS a job requirement.

 

[elektra]

First you have to separate Liberals from Politicians, meaning your friends or the people on the street who call themselves Liberals are not the same as Politicians who call themselves Liberals.

Politicians just do not care about the people or if they do they are not capable of thinking what is best for me.

Why did they send so much of our manufacturing to a Marxist country like China? That is not good for the people, it gives people less jobs, and today we have less Jobs in any time in our history. Less jobs mean people l

 

[emilynghiem]

As always Emily, great post.

You don't belong here, seriously.

You are too rational, too level headed, too non-partisan.


You belong in the 1950's.

You are so sweet. Totally with it.


How about YOU run for president. All the conservatives and liberals will get behind ya.

Thank you MisterBeale
I get my best ideas from interacting with other people, so it is collective responsibility and credit.
I'm just the messenger who either gets shot at, or hugged to death, depending if you like the solutions you hear.

I would probably offer to assist the First Lady or the VP in addressing all issues
through the Senate and the States, to reorganize and reform govt at local levels,
and only leave the truly national level issues for the federal govt at the top.

This would take a lot of work. Everyone would have to help, and I would recommend
100% tax breaks to reward citizens for their contributions to revamp govt to local ownership and management.

As for running for office, I think if I did that, there would be a mass exodus of people fleeing the country
across the border. So at least it would take care of the illegal immigration problem, by crushing them to death
with a stampede of terrified masses.

I think it is best to stick to nonprofit development and outreach through schools, businesses, and other private programs so people have a CHOICE as to what we want to support and pay for.

We really should keep legislation and govt down to a minimum and manage
the majority of our programs locally instead of trying to mandate everything from the top down.

What's great is both the far left and far right actually agree on "DIY" and keeping govt out of it.
The biggest crippling factor we have is this corporate media game of pitting left and right against
each other out of fear, so that politicians can exploit that fear for votes and contributions and bleed
everyone while not fixing a single thing. So as soon as more people wise up to what's going on,
it's better to invest those same resources directly into solutions we already have, and just replicate
working programs. Shift the burden and control of resources BACK to local cities and communities,
through the school programs so citizens can be trained and create jobs doing this work, instead of
several people blowing millions of dollars each running for the same offices against each other,
when we could create SEPARATE jobs for each candidate doing their share of the work for that same money.

We'll figure it out. I am hoping with Bernie Sanders following and Donald Trump's
the people will figure out we need to work together and fund workable plans instead of fighting through govt.

Please tell me the learning curve is reaching an end, and we will collaborate to save resources
we can't afford to keep blowing on twenty candidates all running for the same office.
Why not hire all of them to do part of the work, and delegate it out by party where each group
focuses on what they do best? I hope Trump and Sanders figure it out, that if we all work together
we can cover the whole spectrum, represent all groups and interests, and take the best ideas from
each source and make them all work. Not by fighting but collaborating to save our resources, economy and country from any more waste and abuse where taxpayers can't afford to keep getting charged for the debts.

We have to figure it out, this is unsustainable and we can't afford anything less than agreed solutions
so we can concentrate all our resources on agreed plans and no more political backbiting and infighting.

Thanks, MisterBeale
May all the people with the right ideas organize so we can implement the best and the brightest.
If we call for a Constitutional Convention, I hope it will be to organize by party so we can solve all
problems in a rational effective way.

I really don't think we have a choice, it's just a matter of time before we figure it out.
By trial and error, all the wrong ways will lead to naught, and only the right answers are going to prevail
where everyone agrees to support them. so by process of elimination we will get there, hopefully in one piece!

I will probably work as a consultant setting up facilitation and mediation between the various
groups on issues they have ideas or corrections for. The real leadership will come forward when everyone starts getting organized by group affiliations and by issues/fields of govt and social/economic reform.

Everyone will have a role to play, whether as a student/follower or a leader/teacher,
or as a facilitator/consultant to reorganize where America can solve our own problems instead of creating more.

I think it's getting pretty close to the end of the old ways of doing things,
and we are going to set up a new way to deal with all the diversity and resources that make up our wealth.
No more room for fighting or abuses. We have so much restitution and corrections to make
it will be full time work for anyone involved at any level of society.

I look forward to seeing the leadership come forward and start setting better
examples of collaborative politics, cooperative economics, and actually working together
BECAUSE of our differences and how we are needed to cover different ground.

I always wanted to see this happen in my lifetime. I think it will be set up but will
take generations after me to finish repairing all the damage and rebuilding, even
after the plans and structures are set up. it will take a mix of private and public,
govt and NGO, nonprofit and business, religious and political groups doing their part.

Lots of work to do, we should commit to getting started and let go the old ways of fighting for dominance
as if one group has all the answers and can solve everything, much less one person in office.
it will take the entire nation, and last I checked it took several parties to represent the entire population
and then some. So we need a system that will utilize the party structures to represent all the people
and interests that are focused and organized by affiliation so they already have their elected leadership.
Why not start with that structure and use it. I think that will be a major step in how we correct and resolve issues.