Gun Control - What's the Problem?

[Ray From Cleveland]

Actually the idea is that when drugs are illegal, they cost more, so then there is more profit, and more people trying to make that profit. And with more people pushing them, more people will do them. Once drugs are legalized, you will find that use and over use to the point of abuse, goes way down.

But there really have never been much in the way of social services. Unemployment is money you pay in, and when it runs out, you don't get any more. A single woman with a child can get ADC, but that is about it. You have to be really poor to qualify for SNAP, but that is not free, and you have to pay around half in order to buy the food stamps.

In states where pot is legal, they still have a problem with illegal pot. The sellers simply undercut the prices of the state. Pot usage is not down in those states either, it's up particularly among high school kids. Plus the police have a bigger problem with OVI.

However pot is different in that addiction is a fraction of opioid products. We don't need kids getting this stuff and being hooked until they kill themselves.

Legal pot should be MUCH cheaper than illegal pot smuggled in.
No one on pot wants to drive or do anything that complicated, so it should not be a problem.
Pot use should reduce the dangerous opioid use.

But driving high IS a problem. Ask any Cop on the Street. Of course if you ask the druggies, it's not a problem, now is it. Druggies NEVER drive high, right? That's right up there with Drunks never drive drunk, just ask them.

Of course it's a problem. Just like driving drunk. Or driving angry. Or texting while driving. Or just driving recklessly in general. And guess what? They're all, already, illegal.

But according to Rigby, no one drives stone. Sounds like a stoner trying to come up with more reasons to make it legal....wait.....many states it's already legal so I have no idea what the fruitcake is getting at. AFter his BS about the great amount of kickback from an AR, I decided to thin the gene pool a bit and suggest others just put him under ignore as well. If you wish to put me on ignore, feel free.

People are driving around stoned? Perhaps we need to remove cars. Or at the very least, remove the fast ones. After all, if somebody is stoned or drunk and gets into an accident, a slower car will take less lives. Right????

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The amount of revenue generated off taxing the drugs will more than pay for social services, rehab, education and community programs. You’re all good Ray. Check the box’

I doubt that, but even if it did, you can't replace a human life at any cost.

Agreed. That’s even a more potent point in the gun debate as people take other people’s lives with guns and doing drugs is a personal choice

The difference is that without a gun, people will continue to kill each other. Just look at what's going on in London.

True but the body count is much, much lower.

No evidence to support that. Like I said, two of any semi-automatic weapons can be emptied out at the same time.

What evidence do you need? Isn't the reality enough? A Knife, you have to be closer. A Club, you have to be closer. No, you don't have to reload but you have to be much, much closer. And the body count is generally lower. To claim otherwise is. well......insane.

 

[dblack]

In states where pot is legal, they still have a problem with illegal pot. The sellers simply undercut the prices of the state. Pot usage is not down in those states either, it's up particularly among high school kids. Plus the police have a bigger problem with OVI.

However pot is different in that addiction is a fraction of opioid products. We don't need kids getting this stuff and being hooked until they kill themselves.

Legal pot should be MUCH cheaper than illegal pot smuggled in.
No one on pot wants to drive or do anything that complicated, so it should not be a problem.
Pot use should reduce the dangerous opioid use.

But driving high IS a problem. Ask any Cop on the Street. Of course if you ask the druggies, it's not a problem, now is it. Druggies NEVER drive high, right? That's right up there with Drunks never drive drunk, just ask them.

Of course it's a problem. Just like driving drunk. Or driving angry. Or texting while driving. Or just driving recklessly in general. And guess what? They're all, already, illegal.

But according to Rigby, no one drives stone. Sounds like a stoner trying to come up with more reasons to make it legal....wait.....many states it's already legal so I have no idea what the fruitcake is getting at. AFter his BS about the great amount of kickback from an AR, I decided to thin the gene pool a bit and suggest others just put him under ignore as well. If you wish to put me on ignore, feel free.

People are driving around stoned? Perhaps we need to remove cars. Or at the very least, remove the fast ones. After all, if somebody is stoned or drunk and gets into an accident, a slower car will take less lives. Right????

I think you're an idiot, but I agree with you here.

The notion that government should prevent people from doing wrong, rather than punish them after the fact, is the slipperiest of slopes. Asking government to prevent all wrong is asking it to enslave society.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

In states where pot is legal, they still have a problem with illegal pot. The sellers simply undercut the prices of the state. Pot usage is not down in those states either, it's up particularly among high school kids. Plus the police have a bigger problem with OVI.

However pot is different in that addiction is a fraction of opioid products. We don't need kids getting this stuff and being hooked until they kill themselves.

Legal pot should be MUCH cheaper than illegal pot smuggled in.
No one on pot wants to drive or do anything that complicated, so it should not be a problem.
Pot use should reduce the dangerous opioid use.

But driving high IS a problem. Ask any Cop on the Street. Of course if you ask the druggies, it's not a problem, now is it. Druggies NEVER drive high, right? That's right up there with Drunks never drive drunk, just ask them.

Of course it's a problem. Just like driving drunk. Or driving angry. Or texting while driving. Or just driving recklessly in general. And guess what? They're all, already, illegal.

But according to Rigby, no one drives stone. Sounds like a stoner trying to come up with more reasons to make it legal....wait.....many states it's already legal so I have no idea what the fruitcake is getting at. AFter his BS about the great amount of kickback from an AR, I decided to thin the gene pool a bit and suggest others just put him under ignore as well. If you wish to put me on ignore, feel free.

People are driving around stoned? Perhaps we need to remove cars. Or at the very least, remove the fast ones. After all, if somebody is stoned or drunk and gets into an accident, a slower car will take less lives. Right????

What we've done is made it illegal to drive around stoned or drunk for that matter. We don't wait until AFTER the traffic fatalities. Another thing that's been done is making the vehicle much, much safer. Do we remove all Vehicle and Traffic Safety and go back to the millions of deaths that we were headed for without the safety regulations? We have way too many nutcases driving around these days to even contemplate that. That's a really bad choice to for you to use as an example.

Firearms Regulations are the same thing. We won't ever remove the firearms. But, like in the cars, we can put in place safety regulations. I need a special license to drive an 80,000 lb vehicle down the road. I also need a special license to own a certain type of firearms. That same 80,000 lb vehicle is banned from many urban areas. Just like certain Firearms are banned from certain Urban areas for exactly the same reasons.

The idjit that ran over those Motorcyclists with the truck had a legal CDL for the state he was in. But when they looked, he had numerous infractions under another license in another state that should have precluded him from receiving the CDL in the home state. In fact, he should have been taking the public transportation not driving it. The State dropped the ball. Universal Background Checks where Red Flags can go up will also do the same thing for Firearms for exactly the same reasons.

 

[dblack]

The idjit that ran over those Motorcyclists with the truck had a legal CDL for the state he was in. But when they looked, he had numerous infractions under another license in another state that should have precluded him from receiving the CDL in the home state. In fact, he should have been taking the public transportation not driving it. The State dropped the ball. Universal Background Checks where Red Flags can go up will also do the same thing for Firearms for exactly the same reasons.

Wut? You mean all them regulations didn't actually prevent something bad from happening???

OIC, we just need MOAR regulations. Then things will be cool.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Legal pot should be MUCH cheaper than illegal pot smuggled in.
No one on pot wants to drive or do anything that complicated, so it should not be a problem.
Pot use should reduce the dangerous opioid use.

But driving high IS a problem. Ask any Cop on the Street. Of course if you ask the druggies, it's not a problem, now is it. Druggies NEVER drive high, right? That's right up there with Drunks never drive drunk, just ask them.

Of course it's a problem. Just like driving drunk. Or driving angry. Or texting while driving. Or just driving recklessly in general. And guess what? They're all, already, illegal.

But according to Rigby, no one drives stone. Sounds like a stoner trying to come up with more reasons to make it legal....wait.....many states it's already legal so I have no idea what the fruitcake is getting at. AFter his BS about the great amount of kickback from an AR, I decided to thin the gene pool a bit and suggest others just put him under ignore as well. If you wish to put me on ignore, feel free.

People are driving around stoned? Perhaps we need to remove cars. Or at the very least, remove the fast ones. After all, if somebody is stoned or drunk and gets into an accident, a slower car will take less lives. Right????

What we've done is made it illegal to drive around stoned or drunk for that matter. We don't wait until AFTER the traffic fatalities. Another thing that's been done is making the vehicle much, much safer. Do we remove all Vehicle and Traffic Safety and go back to the millions of deaths that we were headed for without the safety regulations? We have way too many nutcases driving around these days to even contemplate that. That's a really bad choice to for you to use as an example.

Firearms Regulations are the same thing. We won't ever remove the firearms. But, like in the cars, we can put in place safety regulations. I need a special license to drive an 80,000 lb vehicle down the road. I also need a special license to own a certain type of firearms. That same 80,000 lb vehicle is banned from many urban areas. Just like certain Firearms are banned from certain Urban areas for exactly the same reasons.

The idjit that ran over those Motorcyclists with the truck had a legal CDL for the state he was in. But when they looked, he had numerous infractions under another license in another state that should have precluded him from receiving the CDL in the home state. In fact, he should have been taking the public transportation not driving it. The State dropped the ball. Universal Background Checks where Red Flags can go up will also do the same thing for Firearms for exactly the same reasons.

No, we are restricted from side streets, streets with low bridges, and areas where negotiating a turn is nearly impossible, but no town or city restricts 80,000 lbs GVW because no goods would ever get to the stores. All tractor-trailers have a 80,000 lbs GVW.

Furthermore CDL's are federal, not state. The state only issues the license, but the license is federal where all regulations and driver monitoring is done by the feds. If this guy had two licenses, he did so illegally by using a different name perhaps. No insurance company would have insured this guy if his records were legit. In fact many companies won't hire you with 4 points or more because of insurance costs when you apply for a job.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I doubt that, but even if it did, you can't replace a human life at any cost.

Agreed. That’s even a more potent point in the gun debate as people take other people’s lives with guns and doing drugs is a personal choice

The difference is that without a gun, people will continue to kill each other. Just look at what's going on in London.

True but the body count is much, much lower.

No evidence to support that. Like I said, two of any semi-automatic weapons can be emptied out at the same time.

What evidence do you need? Isn't the reality enough? A Knife, you have to be closer. A Club, you have to be closer. No, you don't have to reload but you have to be much, much closer. And the body count is generally lower. To claim otherwise is. well......insane.

To claim that guns or specific types of guns are responsible for murders is even more insane. Let me remind you that the two largest mass killings in our time had not one gun involved. One was done with box cutters (not even a real knife) and the other with a truck and fertilizer.

People focus on mass murders because they are sensationalized by the media. But more people die in Chicago on a holiday weekend than most of the mass murders in this country, and yes, even more are injured as well.

But again I'll ask this question since you didn't answer it the last time: If we had a mass murder with a pistol that killed 20 people, would you be satisfied with that believing a rifle would have killed 22?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

But driving high IS a problem. Ask any Cop on the Street. Of course if you ask the druggies, it's not a problem, now is it. Druggies NEVER drive high, right? That's right up there with Drunks never drive drunk, just ask them.

Of course it's a problem. Just like driving drunk. Or driving angry. Or texting while driving. Or just driving recklessly in general. And guess what? They're all, already, illegal.

But according to Rigby, no one drives stone. Sounds like a stoner trying to come up with more reasons to make it legal....wait.....many states it's already legal so I have no idea what the fruitcake is getting at. AFter his BS about the great amount of kickback from an AR, I decided to thin the gene pool a bit and suggest others just put him under ignore as well. If you wish to put me on ignore, feel free.

People are driving around stoned? Perhaps we need to remove cars. Or at the very least, remove the fast ones. After all, if somebody is stoned or drunk and gets into an accident, a slower car will take less lives. Right????

What we've done is made it illegal to drive around stoned or drunk for that matter. We don't wait until AFTER the traffic fatalities. Another thing that's been done is making the vehicle much, much safer. Do we remove all Vehicle and Traffic Safety and go back to the millions of deaths that we were headed for without the safety regulations? We have way too many nutcases driving around these days to even contemplate that. That's a really bad choice to for you to use as an example.

Firearms Regulations are the same thing. We won't ever remove the firearms. But, like in the cars, we can put in place safety regulations. I need a special license to drive an 80,000 lb vehicle down the road. I also need a special license to own a certain type of firearms. That same 80,000 lb vehicle is banned from many urban areas. Just like certain Firearms are banned from certain Urban areas for exactly the same reasons.

The idjit that ran over those Motorcyclists with the truck had a legal CDL for the state he was in. But when they looked, he had numerous infractions under another license in another state that should have precluded him from receiving the CDL in the home state. In fact, he should have been taking the public transportation not driving it. The State dropped the ball. Universal Background Checks where Red Flags can go up will also do the same thing for Firearms for exactly the same reasons.

No, we are restricted from side streets, streets with low bridges, and areas where negotiating a turn is nearly impossible, but no town or city restricts 80,000 lbs GVW because no goods would ever get to the stores. All tractor-trailers have a 80,000 lbs GVW.

Furthermore CDL's are federal, not state. The state only issues the license, but the license is federal where all regulations and driver monitoring is done by the feds. If this guy had two licenses, he did so illegally by using a different name perhaps. No insurance company would have insured this guy if his records were legit. In fact many companies won't hire you with 4 points or more because of insurance costs when you apply for a job.

The States issue the CDLs. I used to have one myself. Surprise, you ain't the only one. I drove Cattle Trucks in the late 60s until I got a decent Tech Job for Holley Sugar until I got a draft notice (joined the AF fast). I spent time driving School Buses, Water Trucks, etc. in the double OOs. Until one day, I just didn't bother taking the Hazardous Cargo test and just settle for a class C.

And there are routes in the cities that won't allow anything past a certain weight and length. Try going downtown with a 70 foot 85,000 lbs rig down mainstreet. Two things. You won't have insurance after that and chances are, for the next year, you will have a suspended Class A license.

Cars, Trucks, Planes and Trains have regulations of operation. Firearms also have regulations of operations. You want all regulations removed? Remind me to move to a mountain top and have everything delivered to my location IF the deliveries can get through.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Agreed. That’s even a more potent point in the gun debate as people take other people’s lives with guns and doing drugs is a personal choice

The difference is that without a gun, people will continue to kill each other. Just look at what's going on in London.

True but the body count is much, much lower.

No evidence to support that. Like I said, two of any semi-automatic weapons can be emptied out at the same time.

What evidence do you need? Isn't the reality enough? A Knife, you have to be closer. A Club, you have to be closer. No, you don't have to reload but you have to be much, much closer. And the body count is generally lower. To claim otherwise is. well......insane.

To claim that guns or specific types of guns are responsible for murders is even more insane. Let me remind you that the two largest mass killings in our time had not one gun involved. One was done with box cutters (not even a real knife) and the other with a truck and fertilizer.

People focus on mass murders because they are sensationalized by the media. But more people die in Chicago on a holiday weekend than most of the mass murders in this country, and yes, even more are injured as well.

But again I'll ask this question since you didn't answer it the last time: If we had a mass murder with a pistol that killed 20 people, would you be satisfied with that believing a rifle would have killed 22?

Those two you bring up won't happen again in the United States. You want to try and take over an airliner with a box cutter you are going to have two things against you. The Crew is armed and the door is reinforced. Your using an outdated example.

Now about the Fertiizer and the Van. You want to try and get a Van? Anyone can do that. Now, try and get the few hundred pounds of Nitrogen Firtilizer and that will throw a ton of read flags. And accumulating the amount of Diesel to go with it, another set of flags go off. Right after these new policies were enacted, there were still idiots trying to do the same thing. And not one accomplished it. This is America, this isn't France. Another bad example by you.

Here is the answer you keep asking and I keep answering. Just not with the answer you like to hear. If you can kill with a handgun, 22 people, then the security really screwed up. Sorry but that just won't happen anymore. The new record after the new methods have been implements is now 12 plus the shooter and that was done by a former Marine with some crazy combat skill sets. You now have about 90 seconds at the most. The Schools take measures to keep the body count down. Most Cities have a rapid response team that will be there in under a minute. The last shooter got taken down in 45 seconds. This isn't 1997 anymore.

Using a normal Rifle, like a bolt or even something like a Mini-14, you still can't reload fast enough. Yah, I know, all you rexall rangers will claim you can. But there is only one Rifle designed specifically to reload faster than any other rifle in Civilian Hands and that is the AR. Using the AR, in 45 seconds, you can take out as many as 60 people and in 90 seconds, you can take out up to 120. This is why most states are constantly on the lookout for those people of all ages that make the brag or threats of going for the record or doing a mass shooting. Just saying it or typing it on line is a Felony.











Just how many of these would have been carried out. And the weapon of choice for all but the last one (we don't know the weapon mom has) was all the AR-15 which is very capable of doing the mass shootings even with the Rapid Response Teams available.

Now, I know you don't like the answer but I did answer your question. These reports and arrests are almost daily. It's gotten so common place that it doesn't make the news that much because it's almost common place.

 

[Blues Man]

So do you think cutting off social services is going to help clean them up or push them to homelessness and crime?

No, but I'm supporting enough people otherwise capable of working that do not as it is. We don't need to add more on the role. When you make something legal that was previously illegal, more people will participate. So making druggies that were once otherwise good working people will only create more of a problem.

Actually the idea is that when drugs are illegal, they cost more, so then there is more profit, and more people trying to make that profit. And with more people pushing them, more people will do them. Once drugs are legalized, you will find that use and over use to the point of abuse, goes way down.

But there really have never been much in the way of social services. Unemployment is money you pay in, and when it runs out, you don't get any more. A single woman with a child can get ADC, but that is about it. You have to be really poor to qualify for SNAP, but that is not free, and you have to pay around half in order to buy the food stamps.

In states where pot is legal, they still have a problem with illegal pot. The sellers simply undercut the prices of the state. Pot usage is not down in those states either, it's up particularly among high school kids. Plus the police have a bigger problem with OVI.

However pot is different in that addiction is a fraction of opioid products. We don't need kids getting this stuff and being hooked until they kill themselves.

You really can't get addicted to pot.

Of course you can, just not like opioid products.

I lost one of my closest friends partly due to pot. He couldn't go a day without it. After smoking every day since a teen, he started to get goofy. He began to imagine all sorts of things, and paranoia became more frequent. So he began executing his personal relationships one at a time, and he finally got to me. I spoke to him once in the last 20 years or so over the phone, but never seen him since.

A former coworker of mine was addicted. He got pulled for a drug test at work, and bought this stuff to drink that was supposed to cover up the pot. Well he drank it and they found it in his urine sample. The government suspends your medical card which means you can't drive, so he had to attend some addiction classes before he could get his medical card back. He returned to work several weeks later, and about two months down the road, he got pulled for another drug test. He just went into my employers office and resigned. He stated he didn't want my employer to waste company money on something he knows he's going to fail.

I don't know what happened to the guy, but obviously he didn't get another driving job. So not only did he lose his job, he lost his career as well because he was addicted to pot.

Your friend lost his job because he violated the drug policy not because of any addicition

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, but I'm supporting enough people otherwise capable of working that do not as it is. We don't need to add more on the role. When you make something legal that was previously illegal, more people will participate. So making druggies that were once otherwise good working people will only create more of a problem.

Actually the idea is that when drugs are illegal, they cost more, so then there is more profit, and more people trying to make that profit. And with more people pushing them, more people will do them. Once drugs are legalized, you will find that use and over use to the point of abuse, goes way down.

But there really have never been much in the way of social services. Unemployment is money you pay in, and when it runs out, you don't get any more. A single woman with a child can get ADC, but that is about it. You have to be really poor to qualify for SNAP, but that is not free, and you have to pay around half in order to buy the food stamps.

In states where pot is legal, they still have a problem with illegal pot. The sellers simply undercut the prices of the state. Pot usage is not down in those states either, it's up particularly among high school kids. Plus the police have a bigger problem with OVI.

However pot is different in that addiction is a fraction of opioid products. We don't need kids getting this stuff and being hooked until they kill themselves.

You really can't get addicted to pot.

Of course you can, just not like opioid products.

I lost one of my closest friends partly due to pot. He couldn't go a day without it. After smoking every day since a teen, he started to get goofy. He began to imagine all sorts of things, and paranoia became more frequent. So he began executing his personal relationships one at a time, and he finally got to me. I spoke to him once in the last 20 years or so over the phone, but never seen him since.

A former coworker of mine was addicted. He got pulled for a drug test at work, and bought this stuff to drink that was supposed to cover up the pot. Well he drank it and they found it in his urine sample. The government suspends your medical card which means you can't drive, so he had to attend some addiction classes before he could get his medical card back. He returned to work several weeks later, and about two months down the road, he got pulled for another drug test. He just went into my employers office and resigned. He stated he didn't want my employer to waste company money on something he knows he's going to fail.

I don't know what happened to the guy, but obviously he didn't get another driving job. So not only did he lose his job, he lost his career as well because he was addicted to pot.

Your friend lost his job because he violated the drug policy not because of any addicition

So you think he chose to lose his job? Of course not. Nobody that wants and likes their job does that. He knew we had drug tests before he took the job, got busted, and couldn't stop smoking pot to keep his job.

What's worse is not only do you lose your job, you create a record any other potential employer can get which ruins your chances for that new job.

Your assertion here is that he had the option to keep his job; sort of like if your boss told you no red shirts to be worn while working, but you decided to wear a red shirt anyway. If he could have stopped smoking to keep his job, he would have.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The difference is that without a gun, people will continue to kill each other. Just look at what's going on in London.

True but the body count is much, much lower.

No evidence to support that. Like I said, two of any semi-automatic weapons can be emptied out at the same time.

What evidence do you need? Isn't the reality enough? A Knife, you have to be closer. A Club, you have to be closer. No, you don't have to reload but you have to be much, much closer. And the body count is generally lower. To claim otherwise is. well......insane.

To claim that guns or specific types of guns are responsible for murders is even more insane. Let me remind you that the two largest mass killings in our time had not one gun involved. One was done with box cutters (not even a real knife) and the other with a truck and fertilizer.

People focus on mass murders because they are sensationalized by the media. But more people die in Chicago on a holiday weekend than most of the mass murders in this country, and yes, even more are injured as well.

But again I'll ask this question since you didn't answer it the last time: If we had a mass murder with a pistol that killed 20 people, would you be satisfied with that believing a rifle would have killed 22?

Those two you bring up won't happen again in the United States. You want to try and take over an airliner with a box cutter you are going to have two things against you. The Crew is armed and the door is reinforced. Your using an outdated example.

Now about the Fertiizer and the Van. You want to try and get a Van? Anyone can do that. Now, try and get the few hundred pounds of Nitrogen Firtilizer and that will throw a ton of read flags. And accumulating the amount of Diesel to go with it, another set of flags go off. Right after these new policies were enacted, there were still idiots trying to do the same thing. And not one accomplished it. This is America, this isn't France. Another bad example by you.

Here is the answer you keep asking and I keep answering. Just not with the answer you like to hear. If you can kill with a handgun, 22 people, then the security really screwed up. Sorry but that just won't happen anymore. The new record after the new methods have been implements is now 12 plus the shooter and that was done by a former Marine with some crazy combat skill sets. You now have about 90 seconds at the most. The Schools take measures to keep the body count down. Most Cities have a rapid response team that will be there in under a minute. The last shooter got taken down in 45 seconds. This isn't 1997 anymore.

Using a normal Rifle, like a bolt or even something like a Mini-14, you still can't reload fast enough. Yah, I know, all you rexall rangers will claim you can. But there is only one Rifle designed specifically to reload faster than any other rifle in Civilian Hands and that is the AR. Using the AR, in 45 seconds, you can take out as many as 60 people and in 90 seconds, you can take out up to 120. This is why most states are constantly on the lookout for those people of all ages that make the brag or threats of going for the record or doing a mass shooting. Just saying it or typing it on line is a Felony.











Just how many of these would have been carried out. And the weapon of choice for all but the last one (we don't know the weapon mom has) was all the AR-15 which is very capable of doing the mass shootings even with the Rapid Response Teams available.

Now, I know you don't like the answer but I did answer your question. These reports and arrests are almost daily. It's gotten so common place that it doesn't make the news that much because it's almost common place.

Nope. You didn't even attempt to answer the question. Police can respond quickly in city situations, but out in the country is a different story, especially those who have no police department and depend on the Sheriff's department and/or the highway patrol. So don't say it can't happen again. It will happen again unfortunately.

Handguns still lead the weapon of choice for mass murders. It's less bulky, can be reloaded quicker, and more easily concealed.

Guns used in mass shootings 1982-2019 | Statista

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Of course it's a problem. Just like driving drunk. Or driving angry. Or texting while driving. Or just driving recklessly in general. And guess what? They're all, already, illegal.

But according to Rigby, no one drives stone. Sounds like a stoner trying to come up with more reasons to make it legal....wait.....many states it's already legal so I have no idea what the fruitcake is getting at. AFter his BS about the great amount of kickback from an AR, I decided to thin the gene pool a bit and suggest others just put him under ignore as well. If you wish to put me on ignore, feel free.

People are driving around stoned? Perhaps we need to remove cars. Or at the very least, remove the fast ones. After all, if somebody is stoned or drunk and gets into an accident, a slower car will take less lives. Right????

What we've done is made it illegal to drive around stoned or drunk for that matter. We don't wait until AFTER the traffic fatalities. Another thing that's been done is making the vehicle much, much safer. Do we remove all Vehicle and Traffic Safety and go back to the millions of deaths that we were headed for without the safety regulations? We have way too many nutcases driving around these days to even contemplate that. That's a really bad choice to for you to use as an example.

Firearms Regulations are the same thing. We won't ever remove the firearms. But, like in the cars, we can put in place safety regulations. I need a special license to drive an 80,000 lb vehicle down the road. I also need a special license to own a certain type of firearms. That same 80,000 lb vehicle is banned from many urban areas. Just like certain Firearms are banned from certain Urban areas for exactly the same reasons.

The idjit that ran over those Motorcyclists with the truck had a legal CDL for the state he was in. But when they looked, he had numerous infractions under another license in another state that should have precluded him from receiving the CDL in the home state. In fact, he should have been taking the public transportation not driving it. The State dropped the ball. Universal Background Checks where Red Flags can go up will also do the same thing for Firearms for exactly the same reasons.

No, we are restricted from side streets, streets with low bridges, and areas where negotiating a turn is nearly impossible, but no town or city restricts 80,000 lbs GVW because no goods would ever get to the stores. All tractor-trailers have a 80,000 lbs GVW.

Furthermore CDL's are federal, not state. The state only issues the license, but the license is federal where all regulations and driver monitoring is done by the feds. If this guy had two licenses, he did so illegally by using a different name perhaps. No insurance company would have insured this guy if his records were legit. In fact many companies won't hire you with 4 points or more because of insurance costs when you apply for a job.

The States issue the CDLs. I used to have one myself. Surprise, you ain't the only one. I drove Cattle Trucks in the late 60s until I got a decent Tech Job for Holley Sugar until I got a draft notice (joined the AF fast). I spent time driving School Buses, Water Trucks, etc. in the double OOs. Until one day, I just didn't bother taking the Hazardous Cargo test and just settle for a class C.

And there are routes in the cities that won't allow anything past a certain weight and length. Try going downtown with a 70 foot 85,000 lbs rig down mainstreet. Two things. You won't have insurance after that and chances are, for the next year, you will have a suspended Class A license.

Cars, Trucks, Planes and Trains have regulations of operation. Firearms also have regulations of operations. You want all regulations removed? Remind me to move to a mountain top and have everything delivered to my location IF the deliveries can get through.

I already stated that yes, there are streets where trucks cannot go, but not an entire city or town.

The reason they came out with CDL's is because drivers were getting licenses in every state they drove, and were driving like maniacs. When they started to rack up too many points in one state, they detoured around it until the points were removed.

CDLs consolidated all that so you could no longer obtain a chauffeurs license in each state. If you have a CDL in my state of Ohio, and it's suspended because of points, you can't get another one in Michigan because a CDL is a federal license. Those points count in any state you drive in. But people can't go to Washington to take a driving test or have to apply for a license, so you can get the licenses in your state, but it's still a federal license.

 

[Blues Man]

Actually the idea is that when drugs are illegal, they cost more, so then there is more profit, and more people trying to make that profit. And with more people pushing them, more people will do them. Once drugs are legalized, you will find that use and over use to the point of abuse, goes way down.

But there really have never been much in the way of social services. Unemployment is money you pay in, and when it runs out, you don't get any more. A single woman with a child can get ADC, but that is about it. You have to be really poor to qualify for SNAP, but that is not free, and you have to pay around half in order to buy the food stamps.

In states where pot is legal, they still have a problem with illegal pot. The sellers simply undercut the prices of the state. Pot usage is not down in those states either, it's up particularly among high school kids. Plus the police have a bigger problem with OVI.

However pot is different in that addiction is a fraction of opioid products. We don't need kids getting this stuff and being hooked until they kill themselves.

You really can't get addicted to pot.

Of course you can, just not like opioid products.

I lost one of my closest friends partly due to pot. He couldn't go a day without it. After smoking every day since a teen, he started to get goofy. He began to imagine all sorts of things, and paranoia became more frequent. So he began executing his personal relationships one at a time, and he finally got to me. I spoke to him once in the last 20 years or so over the phone, but never seen him since.

A former coworker of mine was addicted. He got pulled for a drug test at work, and bought this stuff to drink that was supposed to cover up the pot. Well he drank it and they found it in his urine sample. The government suspends your medical card which means you can't drive, so he had to attend some addiction classes before he could get his medical card back. He returned to work several weeks later, and about two months down the road, he got pulled for another drug test. He just went into my employers office and resigned. He stated he didn't want my employer to waste company money on something he knows he's going to fail.

I don't know what happened to the guy, but obviously he didn't get another driving job. So not only did he lose his job, he lost his career as well because he was addicted to pot.

Your friend lost his job because he violated the drug policy not because of any addicition

So you think he chose to lose his job? Of course not. Nobody that wants and likes their job does that. He knew we had drug tests before he took the job, got busted, and couldn't stop smoking pot to keep his job.

What's worse is not only do you lose your job, you create a record any other potential employer can get which ruins your chances for that new job.

Your assertion here is that he had the option to keep his job; sort of like if your boss told you no red shirts to be worn while working, but you decided to wear a red shirt anyway. If he could have stopped smoking to keep his job, he would have.

Addiction is the result of long term repeated use so yes he chose to smoke even though he knew a drug test could end his employment

And I've known people who have smoked pot for 20 years and have never once said that they were addicted to weed

All drug use is a choice

And if he really wanted to quit he could have





Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

In states where pot is legal, they still have a problem with illegal pot. The sellers simply undercut the prices of the state. Pot usage is not down in those states either, it's up particularly among high school kids. Plus the police have a bigger problem with OVI.

However pot is different in that addiction is a fraction of opioid products. We don't need kids getting this stuff and being hooked until they kill themselves.

You really can't get addicted to pot.

Of course you can, just not like opioid products.

I lost one of my closest friends partly due to pot. He couldn't go a day without it. After smoking every day since a teen, he started to get goofy. He began to imagine all sorts of things, and paranoia became more frequent. So he began executing his personal relationships one at a time, and he finally got to me. I spoke to him once in the last 20 years or so over the phone, but never seen him since.

A former coworker of mine was addicted. He got pulled for a drug test at work, and bought this stuff to drink that was supposed to cover up the pot. Well he drank it and they found it in his urine sample. The government suspends your medical card which means you can't drive, so he had to attend some addiction classes before he could get his medical card back. He returned to work several weeks later, and about two months down the road, he got pulled for another drug test. He just went into my employers office and resigned. He stated he didn't want my employer to waste company money on something he knows he's going to fail.

I don't know what happened to the guy, but obviously he didn't get another driving job. So not only did he lose his job, he lost his career as well because he was addicted to pot.

Your friend lost his job because he violated the drug policy not because of any addicition

So you think he chose to lose his job? Of course not. Nobody that wants and likes their job does that. He knew we had drug tests before he took the job, got busted, and couldn't stop smoking pot to keep his job.

What's worse is not only do you lose your job, you create a record any other potential employer can get which ruins your chances for that new job.

Your assertion here is that he had the option to keep his job; sort of like if your boss told you no red shirts to be worn while working, but you decided to wear a red shirt anyway. If he could have stopped smoking to keep his job, he would have.

Addiction is the result of long term repeated use so yes he chose to smoke even though he knew a drug test could end his employment

And I've known people who have smoked pot for 20 years and have never once said that they were addicted to weed

All drug use is a choice





Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Initially, drug use is a choice, but if you think it is a matter of will power for those with an addiction, you seriously misunderstand the topic.

.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

In states where pot is legal, they still have a problem with illegal pot. The sellers simply undercut the prices of the state. Pot usage is not down in those states either, it's up particularly among high school kids. Plus the police have a bigger problem with OVI.

However pot is different in that addiction is a fraction of opioid products. We don't need kids getting this stuff and being hooked until they kill themselves.

You really can't get addicted to pot.

Of course you can, just not like opioid products.

I lost one of my closest friends partly due to pot. He couldn't go a day without it. After smoking every day since a teen, he started to get goofy. He began to imagine all sorts of things, and paranoia became more frequent. So he began executing his personal relationships one at a time, and he finally got to me. I spoke to him once in the last 20 years or so over the phone, but never seen him since.

A former coworker of mine was addicted. He got pulled for a drug test at work, and bought this stuff to drink that was supposed to cover up the pot. Well he drank it and they found it in his urine sample. The government suspends your medical card which means you can't drive, so he had to attend some addiction classes before he could get his medical card back. He returned to work several weeks later, and about two months down the road, he got pulled for another drug test. He just went into my employers office and resigned. He stated he didn't want my employer to waste company money on something he knows he's going to fail.

I don't know what happened to the guy, but obviously he didn't get another driving job. So not only did he lose his job, he lost his career as well because he was addicted to pot.

Your friend lost his job because he violated the drug policy not because of any addicition

So you think he chose to lose his job? Of course not. Nobody that wants and likes their job does that. He knew we had drug tests before he took the job, got busted, and couldn't stop smoking pot to keep his job.

What's worse is not only do you lose your job, you create a record any other potential employer can get which ruins your chances for that new job.

Your assertion here is that he had the option to keep his job; sort of like if your boss told you no red shirts to be worn while working, but you decided to wear a red shirt anyway. If he could have stopped smoking to keep his job, he would have.

Addiction is the result of long term repeated use so yes he chose to smoke even though he knew a drug test could end his employment

And I've known people who have smoked pot for 20 years and have never once said that they were addicted to weed

All drug use is a choice

And if he really wanted to quit he could have





Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Who doesn't want to keep their job and record clean? I would think anybody if they could. Hell, you can't even collect unemployment if you lose your job over dope.

Of course nobody will admit they are addicted to pot. Trust me, I smoked pot and so did most of my friends growing up and into early adulthood.

I remember many years ago there was a huge pot bust somewhere, and that left a lot of places dry. That one friend of mine I mentioned was going nuts. He was calling kids from school he hadn't talked to in 15 years. He was getting phone numbers of strangers he never met just to see if anybody had a joint or two for sale. He was shaking like a guy that went cold turkey on heroin.

Opioid products stay in your system for months unlike opioid drugs. When we get into income discussions, I bring up the fact that most anybody can get a better job than minimum wage, but they can't pass the drug test that better jobs require, so they opt to live paycheck to paycheck making crap money doing crap work.

I had a couple I was renting an apartment to a few years back. She and her boyfriend lived here for seven years. Both worked fast food places because they wouldn't or couldn't give up the pot. Yes, they made rent albeit late most times, but they always paid. They had one car between them, and the thing was fifteen years old and beat to all hell. They had to buy used tires every two weeks just to keep it on the road.

 

[EduardBernstein]

Nazis with guns kill people the most of any demographic.

 

[RealDave]

Incrementalism is the problem.

Your perceived slippery slope is your mental problem.

After the 1994 assault rifle ban, how many guns were banned in the ten years it was in effect.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Incrementalism is the problem.

Your perceived slippery slope is your mental problem.

After the 1994 assault rifle ban, how many guns were banned in the ten years it was in effect.

You assholes made us fight you in the U.S. Supreme Court over the issue of whether the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. That is a move for an outright BAN. Don't give me that shit. You fuckers want a ban and you will try anything to get there.

Fuck off.

.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

But according to Rigby, no one drives stone. Sounds like a stoner trying to come up with more reasons to make it legal....wait.....many states it's already legal so I have no idea what the fruitcake is getting at. AFter his BS about the great amount of kickback from an AR, I decided to thin the gene pool a bit and suggest others just put him under ignore as well. If you wish to put me on ignore, feel free.

People are driving around stoned? Perhaps we need to remove cars. Or at the very least, remove the fast ones. After all, if somebody is stoned or drunk and gets into an accident, a slower car will take less lives. Right????

What we've done is made it illegal to drive around stoned or drunk for that matter. We don't wait until AFTER the traffic fatalities. Another thing that's been done is making the vehicle much, much safer. Do we remove all Vehicle and Traffic Safety and go back to the millions of deaths that we were headed for without the safety regulations? We have way too many nutcases driving around these days to even contemplate that. That's a really bad choice to for you to use as an example.

Firearms Regulations are the same thing. We won't ever remove the firearms. But, like in the cars, we can put in place safety regulations. I need a special license to drive an 80,000 lb vehicle down the road. I also need a special license to own a certain type of firearms. That same 80,000 lb vehicle is banned from many urban areas. Just like certain Firearms are banned from certain Urban areas for exactly the same reasons.

The idjit that ran over those Motorcyclists with the truck had a legal CDL for the state he was in. But when they looked, he had numerous infractions under another license in another state that should have precluded him from receiving the CDL in the home state. In fact, he should have been taking the public transportation not driving it. The State dropped the ball. Universal Background Checks where Red Flags can go up will also do the same thing for Firearms for exactly the same reasons.

No, we are restricted from side streets, streets with low bridges, and areas where negotiating a turn is nearly impossible, but no town or city restricts 80,000 lbs GVW because no goods would ever get to the stores. All tractor-trailers have a 80,000 lbs GVW.

Furthermore CDL's are federal, not state. The state only issues the license, but the license is federal where all regulations and driver monitoring is done by the feds. If this guy had two licenses, he did so illegally by using a different name perhaps. No insurance company would have insured this guy if his records were legit. In fact many companies won't hire you with 4 points or more because of insurance costs when you apply for a job.

The States issue the CDLs. I used to have one myself. Surprise, you ain't the only one. I drove Cattle Trucks in the late 60s until I got a decent Tech Job for Holley Sugar until I got a draft notice (joined the AF fast). I spent time driving School Buses, Water Trucks, etc. in the double OOs. Until one day, I just didn't bother taking the Hazardous Cargo test and just settle for a class C.

And there are routes in the cities that won't allow anything past a certain weight and length. Try going downtown with a 70 foot 85,000 lbs rig down mainstreet. Two things. You won't have insurance after that and chances are, for the next year, you will have a suspended Class A license.

Cars, Trucks, Planes and Trains have regulations of operation. Firearms also have regulations of operations. You want all regulations removed? Remind me to move to a mountain top and have everything delivered to my location IF the deliveries can get through.

I already stated that yes, there are streets where trucks cannot go, but not an entire city or town.

The reason they came out with CDL's is because drivers were getting licenses in every state they drove, and were driving like maniacs. When they started to rack up too many points in one state, they detoured around it until the points were removed.

CDLs consolidated all that so you could no longer obtain a chauffeurs license in each state. If you have a CDL in my state of Ohio, and it's suspended because of points, you can't get another one in Michigan because a CDL is a federal license. Those points count in any state you drive in. But people can't go to Washington to take a driving test or have to apply for a license, so you can get the licenses in your state, but it's still a federal license.

And yet it was done at least once. Never is a very narrow word.