Should gangbangers have civil liberties too?

[Ravi]

Drugs don't kill people.

People kill people.

 

[Shogun]

When Fred the drug pusher kills John the innocent bystander or even Jack another drug pusher, THAT IS other people.

When Ralph the drug addict can not get his drugs he will still and even kill to get them, that remains true even if legal drugs are available since Ralph has no job.

Unless now you are suggesting we the tax payers pay for drug users to be given free drugs?

yup, cause we see alcoholics out robbing motherfuckers left and right for beer money.





choosing to ignore the fact of prohibition, eh?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

yup, cause we see alcoholics out robbing motherfuckers left and right for beer money.





choosing to ignore the fact of prohibition, eh?

So you are going to actually argue that hard drugs that addict do not lead to robbery and murder? I suggest you take that claim up with the US Justice Department.

And you make a good point, alcohol does not see that kind of crime usually.

 

[Diuretic]

They steal shit, which is my whole point. Legalizing drugs will only encourage them to steal more.

Why not give them unemployment benefits? That keeps them alive. This is just a personal view but it seems to me that people who are relying on socially provided benefits shouldn't piss them away on alcohol and other currently prohibited drugs but, people being people, some will do so. But if they can grow their own cannabis then that might mean they wouldn't need to do housebreaks for cash.

And those who are addicted to heavy drugs should be able to get them free - yes, that's what I wrote - from government agencies - not hospitals but perhaps special clinics. Again, if the stuff is free to them and if they're willing to try rehab (does anyone really want to be addicted ato anything?).

As for tweakers - they can get jobs with the next George Romero project as cast members.

 

[cbi0090]

The whole point of the Constitution is that it's supposed to protect the most noxious and unpleasant things. The good stuff, whether speech or people, doesn't really need it.

Really? That's a misconception. How we handle the criminal element is supposed to be up to us, the people. They used to hang horse thieves, you think they'd do that today? Unfortunately, it's the courts who have been telling us what we are to do and not do over recent decades and the whole idea that criminals are just another type of citizen took hold.

 

[jillian]

Really? That's a misconception. How we handle the criminal element is supposed to be up to us, the people. They used to hang horse thieves, you think they'd do that today? Unfortunately, it's the courts who have been telling us what we are to do and not do over recent decades and the whole idea that criminals are just another type of citizen took hold.

No it's not a misconception. The Constitution only matters if it protects the noxious things. You're under some misconception that it only protects what's popular. Popular/acceptable things DON'T NEED PROTECTION.

People aren't "criminals" until after they're convicted. So until then, they ARE just another citizen

 

[Swamp Fox]

Drugs don't kill people.

People kill people.

So, by this logic you have to leave our guns alone then..............

 

[Swamp Fox]

Funny how your line of thinking changes when it's

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Then it's all about banning guns because they're bad.

 

[jillian]

Funny how your line of thinking changes when it's

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Then it's all about banning guns because they're bad.

No one has said they want to ban guns. The most I've seen is people saying they should be kept away from mentally ill and criminals.

I thikn we should all be able to agree on that.

 

[Swamp Fox]

No one has said they want to ban guns. The most I've seen is people saying they should be kept away from mentally ill and criminals.

I thikn we should all be able to agree on that.

Check out the Brady campaign and you'll see people who want to ban guns.

 

[jillian]

Check out the Brady campaign and you'll see people who want to ban guns.

I don't think anyone here is Brady campaign.

My own view is I don't understand the attraction, but it's in the Second Amendment. So if people don't like it, they can amend the second amendment. But til then, guns are pretty much with us.

That said, I think gun owners would face a lot less hostility if they acknowledged the importance of screening out the mentally ill and criminal.

 

[Swamp Fox]

The problem I have with that is, they start with screening out the mentally ill and criminals, then they move into screening out more people, then they do the DC thing where no one can have them.

Wasn't it Thomas Jefferson that said people with guns are citizens, people without guns are subjects. What's the first thing any totalitarian regime tries to do when it comes to power. It seizes all of the guns.

And, as we have seen from DC's crime rate, banning guns doesn't do anything but make it easier for the criminals.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The whole point of the Constitution is that it's supposed to protect the most noxious and unpleasant things. The good stuff, whether speech or people, doesn't really need it.

Unless of course you are a religious group.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

No it's not a misconception. The Constitution only matters if it protects the noxious things. You're under some misconception that it only protects what's popular. Popular/acceptable things DON'T NEED PROTECTION.

People aren't "criminals" until after they're convicted. So until then, they ARE just another citizen

Oh my, I suggest you take this post and apply it to the threads on the FLDS. Basicly you are doing there what you bemoan he is doing here.

So it IS fine to ignore the Constitution when you personally find something to loathsome to apply it to. Got ya.

 

[jillian]

Oh my, I suggest you take this post and apply it to the threads on the FLDS. Basicly you are doing there what you bemoan he is doing here.

So it IS fine to ignore the Constitution when you personally find something to loathsome to apply it to. Got ya.

Apples/oranges. Child protective proceedings aren't criminal actions. Different standards. That has repeatedly been explained to you.

You seem to be having problems with the concept because they say they're christians. So that makes it ok to rape little girls in your mind.

It's never ok to rape little girls..... and I don't care if some piece of garbage pedophile tells them they're getting laid for Jesus.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Apples/oranges. Child protective proceedings aren't criminal actions. Different standards. That has repeatedly been explained to you.

You seem to be having problems with the concept because they say they're christians. So that makes it ok to rape little girls in your mind.

It's never ok to rape little girls..... and I don't care if some piece of garbage pedophile tells them they're getting laid for Jesus.

So all the lawyers and others now saying the Government overstepped and violated its own laws and rules are all Polygamists and child rapers? Those that also believe it may have, again all supporters of the small sect and all pedophiles?Your ignorant little rant is just that IGNORANT.

Pretending that taking children from parents is not covered by the Constitution and that Family COURTS do not have to abide by the same laws and Constitution as every other court is also ignorant as hell.

Do not EVER claim you support the Constitution because what you REALLY mean is you support it when it does what you want and conveniently toss it aside when it does not support what you want. There is a word for that.

IF the worst of the worst do not have the same rights as everyone else, NO ONE has any rights. If you condone stripping the rights of people you disagree with, your rights are meaningless, since eventually someone will disagree with you and can then use the same arguments to strip your non existant rights.

 

[dread]

yup, cause we see alcoholics out robbing motherfuckers left and right for beer money.





choosing to ignore the fact of prohibition, eh?

Actually we see "beer runs" all the time.


We just had a guy die just last month , the day before his birthday, because he went out on a beer run and cops cornered him and he pulled a gun out and got shot before he could shoot them.

 

[Swamp Fox]

yup, cause we see alcoholics out robbing motherfuckers left and right for beer money.





choosing to ignore the fact of prohibition, eh?

And we had another guy south of us kill a person when he fled in his car and smashed into their car. He was fleeing from a beer run.

 

[Larkinn]

When Fred the drug pusher kills John the innocent bystander or even Jack another drug pusher, THAT IS other people.

And those people go away if its legal.

When Ralph the drug addict can not get his drugs he will still and even kill to get them, that remains true even if legal drugs are available since Ralph has no job.

No, actually its much less true since now drugs are legal and would be significantly cheaper.

Unless now you are suggesting we the tax payers pay for drug users to be given free drugs?

Its amusing to me that you cite problems that come about from drugs being illegal to keep them illegal.

 

[Larkinn]

So you are going to actually argue that hard drugs that addict do not lead to robbery and murder? I suggest you take that claim up with the US Justice Department.

Gee, thats because its expensive and they need the money.

And you make a good point, alcohol does not see that kind of crime usually.

Actually half of all violent crimes in the US are done by someone under the influence of alcohol.

Shall we ban that as well, RGS?