Suffolk DA calls for tighter firearms laws

Status
Not open for further replies.
Honestly... I have to respectfully disagree entirely. I'm hard pressed to see how legalizing drugs is the right direction for our country. A better question might be why do so many depend on drugs?

That is a good question - but do you really think the answer is to lock people up in prison for it? Is the answer to break into people's house in the middle of the night with SWAT teams ? The police will answer that they need the swat teams because people are armed - well everybody on this forum should realize why those people are armed - if you thought somebody was going to break into your house and gun you down - you would probably arm yourself.

Honestly I can't say 100% that I think legalization is the answer either. However I do think that the so called "war on drugs" has done serious damage to this country. And it has a direct connection to our right to bear arms - because whenever law enforcement goes in to try and seize drugs - and those people who are being raided fight back - with guns - our politicians have one more excuse to link guns and crime.

Furthermore the viciousness that the drug war is fought with comes in a large way from the fact that many of the people who are taking drugs feel that they are doing nothing wrong. So when they get persecuted for it they do what people normally do when they feel something entirely unjust is being done to them - they fight back. This breeds contempt for "civilians" on the part of the police because they have to resort to extreme tactics to make any progress in the drug war. Then it breeds contempt for police among civilians because those police are trying to take away something that many people dont see as "wrong".

This is exactly what happened during prohibition - and it has been pointed out that it is not a coincidence that some of the first restrictive gun laws occured during the 30's (i believe it was 1934) - all those law enforcement people now out of work had to have something to do - why not send them after gun owners now.

Go read Vin Suprynowicz 's "Send in the Waco Killers" and let me know if you still feel the same way about the drug war afterwards.
 
That is a good question - but do you really think the answer is to lock people up in prison for it? Is the answer to break into people's house in the middle of the night with SWAT teams ? The police will answer that they need the swat teams because people are armed - well everybody on this forum should realize why those people are armed - if you thought somebody was going to break into your house and gun you down - you would probably arm yourself.

Honestly I can't say 100% that I think legalization is the answer either. However I do think that the so called "war on drugs" has done serious damage to this country. And it has a direct connection to our right to bear arms - because whenever law enforcement goes in to try and seize drugs - and those people who are being raided fight back - with guns - our politicians have one more excuse to link guns and crime.

Furthermore the viciousness that the drug war is fought with comes in a large way from the fact that many of the people who are taking drugs feel that they are doing nothing wrong. So when they get persecuted for it they do what people normally do when they feel something entirely unjust is being done to them - they fight back. This breeds contempt for "civilians" on the part of the police because they have to resort to extreme tactics to make any progress in the drug war. Then it breeds contempt for police among civilians because those police are trying to take away something that many people dont see as "wrong".
This is exactly what happened during prohibition - and it has been pointed out that it is not a coincidence that some of the first restrictive gun laws occured during the 30's (i believe it was 1934) - all those law enforcement people now out of work had to have something to do - why not send them after gun owners now.

Go read Vin Suprynowicz 's "Send in the Waco Killers" and let me know if you still feel the same way about the drug war afterwards.

Perfect example of why banning guns and making ownership illegal won't work!!!!!!! The politicians are screaming about the trafficing of guns and how they need to stop it. Well, they've been trying to stop the trafficing of drugs for like forever and the drug problem is as large as ever...... $1,000,000.00 bust in Mattapan the other day as an example.

So now drugs are illegal and people think they should be legal so they still use them so there is a market for them. So what has the ban on drugs done? It's shown us that if you make laws making the use, sale and posession of drugs illegal, people will still use, sell and posess them.

So in essence...banning does nothing. It doesn't eliminate the problem as all.

So law abiding citizens will opt to obey the law and those who need guns to further their drug trade will still use, sell and posess them.

So the politicians should look at what banning drugs did and how there are no more illegal drugs on the streets and now we don't have anymore drug addicts.
 
What "unemployment?"

This is exactly what happened during prohibition - and it has been pointed out that it is not a coincidence that some of the first restrictive gun laws occured [sic] during the 30's (i believe it was 1934) - all those law enforcement people now out of work had to have something to do - why not send them after gun owners now [?].

"Law enforcement people now out of work" in the Thirties? Get real.

NFA '34 was the direct response to heavily armed criminals; bootleggers and the "motor bandits" like Bonnie & Clyde, John Dillinger, Pretty Boy Floyd, and Machine Gun Kelly. In short, the same reasons that created the .38 Super and .357 Magnum.

To the extent unemployment had anything to do with NFA '34, it was fear of armed mobs leaving the "Hoovervilles" and rioting (See MacArthur's handling of the "Bonus Army").
 
I have heard the theory that most of the violence related to drugs is from disputes among drug dealers that cannot be resolved through normal civil channels because they would be arrested. If you have a dispute in your business, you sue. If you cannot do that, you have no choice but to take matters into your own hands.

Makes sense to me. If illegal drugs weren't so profitable, and if they could be run like any other business, I think the violence would go away, just like it has with alcohol and prohibition. I cannot believe that we as a nation learned nothing from that whole enormous, constitution-ammending episode!
 
The war on drugs needs to be ended. I am very anti-drug but we aren't getting anywhere with it, treatment is the best way to handle it. Also, I am FIRMLY against the cops doing drug raids in the middle of the night. They seem to frequently go to the wrong address. How the hell is a person supposed to know it's the cops instead of a criminal? A gun owner is going to grab their weapon to defend themselves and their families and the cops may shoot him down or vice versa. All because the cops went to the wrong freaking place. It's ridiculous. Stop the raids now!

http://www.cato.org/raidmap/
 
This thread has run it's course and shot off-topic.... Nothing to see here, move along... [thinking]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom