Another shooting on campus

[Benny B]

Great points.

I don't really see a downside to these types of guns. You'd think it would be a pretty reasonable compromise point. If you think they are a good idea, and I think they are a good idea, and we are on opposing sides of the spectrum, you'd think it would be a slam dunk.

But you see, we're not on opposite sides of the spectrum; dichotomies really aren't my thing.

Think of me as the guy in the middle of the teeter-totter who can slam both sides into the ground simply by shifting my weight slightly to one side or the other... the further you are from equilibrium, the harder you're going to hit the ground.

Hey we both have our opinions, which we're entitled to.  Mine has nothing to do with what the NRA thinks.  Like I said, I followed the CC legislation process in IL last year, attended hearings, spoke with lawmakers and it's my opinion that the anti's are frothing at the mouth to mandate smart gun technology, among many other restrictions.  And with the Machine wielding so much power, the push for these restrictions will never end.  Thank God for the downstate democrats!

You spoke with lawmakers?  Voluntarily?  Or was that part of an internship for a career working with coma patients?

So what if the anti's mandate smart gun technology?  There are enough "dumb" guns in circulation today to last for generations for people who want them.  Heck, you buy me a smart gun, and I'll straight up trade you for my dumb shotgun in near-mint condition.  The only people who stand to lose by the implementation of smart guns are gun manufacturers... because if smart gun technology was mandated, overall gun sales would plummet.

The only "right" that the pro's would be losing is the ability to buy a shiny new Glock every other year.  Instead, you have to buy one that - while functionally identical - simply doesn't come with the fresh scent of cutting oil.  The purpose of the 2nd Amendment isn't to make you feel pretty; if TV's taught me anything, the purpose is to ensure that when aliens (or zombies) invade the US, we don't have to fight back with a board & a nail.

[HansMoleman]

But you see, we're not on opposite sides of the spectrum; dichotomies really aren't my thing.

Think of me as the guy in the middle of the teeter-totter who can slam both sides into the ground simply by shifting my weight slightly to one side or the other... the further you are from equilibrium, the harder you're going to hit the ground.

You spoke with lawmakers?  Voluntarily?  Or was that part of an internship for a career working with coma patients?

So what if the anti's mandate smart gun technology?  There are enough "dumb" guns in circulation today to last for generations for people who want them.  Heck, you buy me a smart gun, and I'll straight up trade you for my dumb shotgun in near-mint condition.  The only people who stand to lose by the implementation of smart guns are gun manufacturers... because if smart gun technology was mandated, overall gun sales would plummet.

The only "right" that the pro's would be losing is the ability to buy a shiny new Glock every other year.  Instead, you have to buy one that - while functionally identical - simply doesn't come with the fresh scent of cutting oil.  The purpose of the 2nd Amendment isn't to make you feel pretty; if TV's taught me anything, the purpose is to ensure that when aliens (or zombies) invade the US, we don't have to fight back with a board & a nail.

I think we're on opposite sides of the teeter-totter

[jesmu84]

There has been decriminalization of many things.  The question you asked me if I was equating murder with drugs, which I am not.  That doesn't change the fact that there has been a movement to decriminalize a number of things in this country, from drug crimes, immigration, etc.  As it relates to this topic, I believe I also mentioned the lack of will to commit people to an institution that need to be committed, or allowing dangerous folks to be out in society. 

I don't see how that is politicizing anything.  That is the nature of what is going on.  Don't want to offend someone for being here illegally, so we no longer say illegal (even though they are here illegally).  Don't want to attach a stigma to someone that might be schizophrenic, so we don't hospitalize.  Etc, etc.

New study on the economics of ending the war on drugs

http://www.lse.ac.uk/IDEAS/publications/reports/pdf/LSE-IDEAS-DRUGS-REPORT-FINAL-WEB.pdf

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/06/end-drug-war_n_5275078.html

[Coleman]

But you see, we're not on opposite sides of the spectrum; dichotomies really aren't my thing.

Think of me as the guy in the middle of the teeter-totter who can slam both sides into the ground simply by shifting my weight slightly to one side or the other... the further you are from equilibrium, the harder you're going to hit the ground.

You spoke with lawmakers?  Voluntarily?  Or was that part of an internship for a career working with coma patients?

So what if the anti's mandate smart gun technology?  There are enough "dumb" guns in circulation today to last for generations for people who want them.  Heck, you buy me a smart gun, and I'll straight up trade you for my dumb shotgun in near-mint condition.  The only people who stand to lose by the implementation of smart guns are gun manufacturers... because if smart gun technology was mandated, overall gun sales would plummet.

The only "right" that the pro's would be losing is the ability to buy a shiny new Glock every other year.  Instead, you have to buy one that - while functionally identical - simply doesn't come with the fresh scent of cutting oil.  The purpose of the 2nd Amendment isn't to make you feel pretty; if TV's taught me anything, the purpose is to ensure that when aliens (or zombies) invade the US, we don't have to fight back with a board & a nail.

Dichotomies aren't my thing either, that's why I used the term spectrum. But I think we are devolving into semantics.

The gist of my point was that we have fundamental differences on gun laws yet agree that net net, this technology would be a good thing.

In general I agree with your point that the middle ground (or center of the teeter-totter, if you will) is generally a good place for a reasonable person to be. The problem is, what is the true center of the teeter-totter?

Views on certain issues have shifted so fundamentally in our country in the last century its hard to even know where the middle is anymore. A current "middle ground" view on gay marriage (such as civil unions) would have been considered far left just 10 years ago. Obamacare (currently derided as "socialist" by Republicans) was originally floated by a conservative Richard Nixon in the 1970s (http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterubel/2014/02/04/another-early-obamacare-supporter-richard-nixon/).

So what's really the center?

[ChicosBailBonds]

New study on the economics of ending the war on drugs

http://www.lse.ac.uk/IDEAS/publications/reports/pdf/LSE-IDEAS-DRUGS-REPORT-FINAL-WEB.pdf

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/06/end-drug-war_n_5275078.html

These types of arguments have been made for a long time.  Remember, tobacco bad....because tobacco has big corporations behind it so attack them.  BUT, legalize drugs, cuz....well....even though there are serious health risks for some people, that's ok.


How has that war on poverty thing gone....should that end?

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

These types of arguments have been made for a long time.  Remember, tobacco bad....because tobacco has big corporations behind it so attack them.  BUT, legalize drugs, cuz....well....even though there are serious health risks for some people, that's ok.


How has that war on poverty thing gone....should that end?

The key difference is that tobacco companies knowingly misled the public to think that cigarettes weren't harmful.

POT IS HARMFUL.

Doesn't mean it has to be illegal. Lots of "harmful" things are legal.

Also, from a practicality standpoint, making such things illegal creates another unregulated marketplace, and there are a whole new set of issues that go along with that.

I'm not saying Pot should definitely BE LEGAL, but I won't dismiss it out of hand.

[Benny B]

The key difference is that tobacco companies knowingly misled the public to think that cigarettes weren't harmful.

POT IS HARMFUL.

Doesn't mean it has to be illegal. Lots of "harmful" things are legal.

Also, from a practicality standpoint, making such things illegal creates another unregulated marketplace, and there are a whole new set of issues that go along with that.

I'm not saying Pot should definitely BE LEGAL, but I won't dismiss it out of hand.

I always thought if you could legalize everything, a guy like Sam Walton would come along with a Wal-Mart of drug stores, offer crack and blow and pot and meth at low everyday prices, which would in turn result in all the hippies, gangbangers and junkies OD-ing.  Not only could we raise a buttload of tax revenue, but it would essentially bring an end to the poverty, crime and hippie music festivals that plague the country.

[Lennys Tap]

These types of arguments have been made for a long time.  Remember, tobacco bad....because tobacco has big corporations behind it so attack them.  BUT, legalize drugs, cuz....well....even though there are serious health risks for some people, that's ok.


How has that war on poverty thing gone....should that end?

As a mostly libertarian (thought you were also) this issue is pretty simple and not at all as you frame it.

Legalize (and regulate) drugs (like alcohol and tobacco) even though we know there are health risks involved because a) freedom of choice (even choices most would consider bad ones) is essential to a free society and b) the "drug war" has had horrible unintended consequences - homicides, overflowing prisons, etc.

The tobacco "bad" meme is misrepresented by you. It's true that it is a killer and a physically addictive one at that. But as long as that's on the table people can, in my view, pay their money and take their chances. The really "bad" part of tobacco and the corporations that sell it is that they knew it was addictive and a killer and while they searched (and found) ways to make it more addictive they were perjuring themselves on Capitol Hill about it. How you can defend that is beyond me.

[keefe]

hippie music festivals that plague the country.

So what will 4ever, Lenny, Goose, and Sir Lawrence get into if not for hippie music festivals? At least these affairs are contained and keeps their sort off the streets.

[jesmu84]

As a mostly libertarian (thought you were also) this issue is pretty simple and not at all as you frame it.

Legalize (and regulate) drugs (like alcohol and tobacco) even though we know there are health risks involved because a) freedom of choice (even choices most would consider bad ones) is essential to a free society and b) the "drug war" has had horrible unintended consequences - homicides, overflowing prisons, etc.

The tobacco "bad" meme is misrepresented by you. It's true that it is a killer and a physically addictive one at that. But as long as that's on the table people can, in my view, pay their money and take their chances. The really "bad" part of tobacco and the corporations that sell it is that they knew it was addictive and a killer and while they searched (and found) ways to make it more addictive they were perjuring themselves on Capitol Hill about it. How you can defend that is beyond me.

Those are necessary d/t all the private prison contracts that governors across the nation signed.

[Chicago_inferiority_complexes]

I've never quite understood the idea that we should ban pot because it's bad, or not ban something because it's not bad. Who is supposed to determine these claims? The government? Obama's HHS? Pass. I'd rather not have the government decide whether something should be legal or not based on whether the government thinks it is healthy. It's really not far from the logic that says the government has the competence to regulate anything else it deems harmful.

And if it is harmful, who cares? Guns are harmful and I want as many non-felons to own them as desired. Cars are harmful. Knives are harmful. Do we have the government regulate things on a grading scale of harm?

The worst thing about the drug war - the worst - is the complete militarization of today's local police force. A thing of pure disgust.

Also, it's time to stop baby sitting citizens. If you want to destroy yourself with McD's every day, I don't want to pay for your medical bills. If you want to destroy yourself with pot, I don't want the government spending my tax dollars to warehouse you in prison.

[Lennys Tap]

So what will 4ever, Lenny, Goose, and Sir Lawrence get into if not for hippie music festivals? At least these affairs are contained and keeps their sort off the streets.

My favorite photo of me and "my old lady". Ain't she a looker?

[keefe]

My favorite photo of me and "my old lady". Ain't she a looker?

The 'Pope' introduce you two at The Gym?

[swoopem]

I always thought if you could legalize everything, a guy like Sam Walton would come along with a Wal-Mart of drug stores, offer crack and blow and pot and meth at low everyday prices, which would in turn result in all the hippies, gangbangers and junkies OD-ing.  Not only could we raise a buttload of tax revenue, but it would essentially bring an end to the poverty, crime and hippie music festivals that plague the country.

Whoa bro getting rid of festivals is a little over the top don't you think? I don't care about gangbangers and junkies, but don't try and take my music away. Seems like you could use a summer tour run, eh

[Lennys Tap]

The 'Pope' introduce you two at The Gym?

She's Toothless Ruthie's little sister. Met her at the 'Lanche - didn't need the Pope for the hook up, I was smooth back in the day.

[Spotcheck Billy]

She's Toothless Ruthie's little sister. Met her at the 'Lanche - didn't need the Pope for the hook up, I was smooth back in the day.

what the heck happened?

[Lennys Tap]

what the heck happened?

You know that old trees get stronger
And old rivers grow wilder every day....

[keefe]

You know that old trees get stronger
And old rivers grow wilder every day....

Hello in there, hello

[Sir Lawrence]

So what will 4ever, Lenny, Goose, and Sir Lawrence get into if not for hippie music festivals? At least these affairs are contained and keeps their sort off the streets.

I wish I could grow a beard like that.  His isn't bad either. 

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

I always thought if you could legalize everything, a guy like Sam Walton would come along with a Wal-Mart of drug stores, offer crack and blow and pot and meth at low everyday prices, which would in turn result in all the hippies, gangbangers and junkies OD-ing.  Not only could we raise a buttload of tax revenue, but it would essentially bring an end to the poverty, crime and hippie music festivals that plague the country.

Honestly, I think that is what would happen.

Some people think that people would still "grow their own" or whatever, but the truth is, the pharma companies will figure out how to manufacture it cheaply, and sell in mass.

Now, if the government taxes it so highly that it's "expensive", then you still may have your traditional "pot dealers".

But, as long as the taxes aren't too high, pharma would wipe out every pot growing/selling organization within 10 years. Done. Gone. Buh bye. Why buy pot from shady jeff when you can get it at walmart in pill form for 10.99 per bottle? Take 1 pill with a bottle of beer, and I'm set for the evening.

The really interesting thing would be to watch the potential vacuum that would be created. Still a good amount of cash/guns out of the street that was traditionally used for pot manufacturing and pot sales. Now they aren't needed, so where does it all go? Other drug related enterprises?

Oh, and I know it's hypocritical, but I'm not sure if I want to legalize meth (and/or blow). They are soooo additive and destructive.

[keefe]

Why buy pot from shady jeff when you can get it at walmart in pill form for 10.99 per bottle?

Yea, but then like what would I do with my Europe 72 double album cover, man?

[Lennys Tap]

Hello in there, hello

My favorite Prine song.

[keefe]

My favorite Prine song.

The mailman delivers, brother

[WI inferiority Complexes]

Why buy pot from shady jeff when you can get it at walmart in pill form for 10.99 per bottle? Take 1 pill with a bottle of beer, and I'm set for the evening.

I've been smoking pot for decades, and that sounds like an absolutely terrible way to get stoned.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I've never quite understood the idea that we should ban pot because it's bad, or not ban something because it's not bad. Who is supposed to determine these claims? The government? Obama's HHS? Pass. I'd rather not have the government decide whether something should be legal or not based on whether the government thinks it is healthy. It's really not far from the logic that says the government has the competence to regulate anything else it deems harmful.

And if it is harmful, who cares? Guns are harmful and I want as many non-felons to own them as desired. Cars are harmful. Knives are harmful. Do we have the government regulate things on a grading scale of harm?

The worst thing about the drug war - the worst - is the complete militarization of today's local police force. A thing of pure disgust.

Also, it's time to stop baby sitting citizens. If you want to destroy yourself with McD's every day, I don't want to pay for your medical bills. If you want to destroy yourself with pot, I don't want the government spending my tax dollars to warehouse you in prison.

I'd like some consistency.  Tobacco is bad, we go after tobacco companies, we have ads condemning the usage all the time.  Pot is harmful, impacts some people poorly from a health perspective, yet we glorify it and are pushing more lax laws.  What kind of true research has been done to understand all the impacts?  What are the impacts in vehicle accidents, workplace injury, general safety for others, what does it lead to (heavier drug use \ alcohol use), etc.  Decades ago we let products be sold without totally understanding them.  Then, we learned more about it and much of it was hidden from the consumer, thus the tobacco companies got sued to kingdom come.  What happens as we learn more of impacts to health on these drugs, who is everyone going to sue 20, 30 years down the road?  The gov't?