I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers and not in the hands of crooks. They belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities.You mean like Chicago, which is more deadly for Americans than Afghanistan? Has been for a while; I was in Iraq when the murder rate for Baghdad dropped below Chicago's. Got lots of gun control in Chicago, too.
You know how we made Baghdad safer than Chicago? We put a lot of guys with assault rifles to walking the streets.
They could be soldiers, but they don't have to be. A properly trained citizens' militia would do a lot for bringing order to Chicago. If you want to talk about the Second Amendment, let's talk about that. Why do you want to take from the ordinary, honest citizen the capacity to protect himself, his family, and his neighborhood? Why don't you empower him instead?
Stopping the failed "war on drugs" would go along way to fixing things too.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I'm come around to believing you're 100% right about that. For a long time I didn't -- one of my cousins had a wife who destroyed herself with drugs, so I know how bad they can be. But the cost of the 'war' to our society is far worse.
ReplyDelete"For a long time I didn't -- one of my cousins had a wife who destroyed herself with drugs, so I know how bad they can be. But the cost of the 'war' to our society is far worse."
ReplyDeleteYup. Many in my generation of mid-boomers fell for the turn on, tune in, drop out siren's self-destructive song. I've seen my share of people who fell to their weakness for drug use/abuse and worse, they destroyed others in the process.
Long ago, I though the WOD might yield some positive results, but as the decades have passed I've yet to see any measure that suggests we've made any progress --saved or created drug free former druggies? improved section 8 neighborhoods and/or schools? eliminated the underground drug markets? ended or suppressed the violence in the drug trade?-- in the WOD.
On the other hand, seizure law has improved the cash flow in many a bureaucrats budget.
Reluctantly, I'm now leaning in the call it a failed campaign and declare an armistice direction too as I think much like LBJ's war on poverty failed, so too has the war on drugs.
Tonight I'm too woe-out to go into all the reasons I think this, but in sum, I'm of the opinion that we've lost much, much more than we've gained since its inception.
As far as the latest pass at the mythical reasonable restrictions on firearms so frequently raised as an imperial dictate by the Federales, well, they can bite my @$$. Or as another fellow once said, ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
This far, no further.
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ.
ReplyDeleteHooah.
Meh. I'm more in the "stop playing around and make it a real war" camp, myself.
ReplyDeleteCompletely impractical in our failing republic, of course, but the drug lords and their armies are every bit as much the enemy as any we've ever had.
There's no reason not to combine the approaches. We could end the war on drugs versus American citizens, while endorsing a robust assassination program versus drug lords and their leadership.
ReplyDeleteThere are some legal issues there, but hey, we did it to Bin Ladin...
ReplyDeleteIf Mexico can't or won't clean up there mess, perhaps it is on us to do something about it.
Well, the problem with that is that Mexico's "mess" (not to mention other drug producing places in South America) as you call it, is pretty much a direct result of the ban (and demand) in the US.
ReplyDeleteI know I've said in the past that I favored legalization, and I know I've also said it's NOT because I'm a user looking for validation. I can honestly say the only illegal drug I've ever taken was alcohol while underage (and no that's not "lawyering up" because I took something that wasn't illegal at the time or location... I have never put a substance in my body that would have gotten me in legal trouble in the US at any time). My desire is strictly one of principle that the government should not have a right to tell you what you can and cannot put in your body, regardless of how self-destructive it may be.
ReplyDeleteBut how I GOT there is a tale I don't think I shared. My father, a conservative, is the one who convinced me. I'm not sure he's yet convinced my liberal mother, but that's between them. No, his position was that the War on Drugs has yielded, and would never yield, the desired results. He worried for his children, of course, but relied on the fact that he had brought us up well enough to avoid that scourge (my mother, being a professional worrier, never got over that fear I think).
I spoke at length with my conservative father-in-law regarding this, as he was horrified at the idea. I explained my position (based upon my fathers and expanded upon by my own political development) and at best he was skeptical, but agreed that no ill motives needed to be present for an honest person to support legalization. So we very cordially disagree.
I also recognize that the vast majority of people will not support legalization, because the personal responsibility required to make it meaningful and safe does not exist. I'm no Marxist crying "nobody ever did it RIGHT before, this time we'll make it work!" I honestly know that libertarianism will likely not work in this (or indeed any) nation in the foreseeable future. Humans are too short sighted to accept that they must be responsible for themselves and not blame everyone else for their failings and misfortunes.
I've seen enough people destroy themselves with drugs (and alcohol) not to take the problem lightly. I still believe that you can't rescue people from their own will to self-destruction by removing this or that tool from their reach. It's not even clear that we can make the tools that much harder to reach, as a practical matter. And all that "benefit" has to be balanced against the horrorshow we've created with the illegal trade.
ReplyDeleteAs for the AK-47s, I'll never accept that the only purpose of the 2d Amendment is to protect the right to hunt and defend the home against burglars. It clearly is a right to protect oneself against overweening government. Anti-gun nuts should be grateful we don't demand equal rights to possess WMDs.
I tend to agree with the libertarian who said 1) for all but meth, make it legal and punish the daylights out of people who commit crimes (including driving) while under the influence. 2) Make meth possession and manufacture (and possibly use) a capital crime.
ReplyDeleteLittleRed1
To think this thug gives a damn about the "people" is laughable. There is one reason, and one reason only, politicians want to disarm people.
ReplyDeleteTo remove a threat to their power.
All the rest of the talk is fluff for idiots.
Oh yes- "empower the citizenry" ?
ReplyDeletePoliticians want people dependent, not empowered. Just check the latest stats for UEI, SNAP, dis -ability, and the thousands of other programs designed to snare with honey and enslave with dependency.
what's really worrisome is how much mischief the gov can get up with an army of dependents at their disposal. Remember Obama's "civilian security force"? How amenable to protecting civil rights would such a force be, drafted from the dependent?
Good question, but the opposing question is: how amenable are the gangsters?
ReplyDeleteI'd go find a group of church leaders in the poorer parts of Chicago, put them in charge of organizing the militia, and send a couple of Special Forces guys down to make sure they were properly trained. Nationalize the militia, and make sure everyone knows that if the gangsters contest their control we'll send the National Guard to back them up as necessary.
My question is, if (thanks to Roe v Wade) settled case law is of paramount and unquestioned supremacy, then thanks to US v Miller, we should all be able to own M-16 and M-203's (not to mention SAWs, M-2's, and Javelin launchers):
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller
Given the current administration,
ReplyDeleteThe church leaders will be Wright and Farrakhan, and the militia will be trained by spetznaz.
The thing is, gangsters LOVE to be put in a position of authority. Just check out the makeup of any secret police force.
Heh. Yahoo is sub-heading the article about Obama's speech: "The president takes his boldest step into the gun control debate since the mass shooting in Colorado."
ReplyDeleteAs usual, giving a speech accompanied by no action whatsoever constitutes his boldest step.
"giving a speech accompanied by no action whatsoever constitutes his boldest step."
ReplyDeleteHe's a mighty bold speaker alrighty, but the stepping part causes images of mom jeans, bicycle helmets, and wiffle ball pitches arching through the air, almost all the way to home plate, to suddenly appear just over the synaptic horizon.
There's no reason not to combine the approaches ...
ReplyDeleteYes, combining them would be ideal.
My plan, such as it is now, would have three parts.
1. Go back to a federalist interpretation and drop all federal laws against these drugs. However, in the gvt's role of regulating commerce, forbid any of these drugs from being imported. Require them to be made in the US and carry a stamp to that effect. Importing, or buying goods w/o the 'made in the US' stamp, would be a felony as well as treason. Keep the 'made-in-the-US goods cheap; tax them, if at all, just enough to pay for the inspections, etc., needed for my stamp idea to work, but this part of the plan is to undercut the drug lords' profits as much as possible.
2. Use defense intelligence methods to select areas that are strategically important (e.g., transport zones, drug factories, drug lord compounds). Declare those areas war zones and give jurisdiction of them to the military. The military would take out any drug lord assets in these areas, prosecuting it as a war (e.g., full arty and tactical air support, etc.).
3. It is important to influence the public on this topic. This would take two forms. First, on a daily basis, informing the public about why we are taking these actions and keeping them informed on what actions are being taken. Second, creating consequences for supporting our enemies. Since this would be a real war, prosecute anyone who gives aid or comfort to the drug lords or their minions for treason. This would include importing drugs, buying imported drugs, selling drug lord forces weapons, etc.