And that’s why I’m rooting for an asteroid.
Veeshir
July 19th, 2011 at 8:53 pm
Comment to Where America used to be
[Over the years I have given that same resolution a lot of thought. Probably far more thought than it deserves.—Joe]
Monthly Archives: July 2011
Enhanced Penalties
Over the years, mostly in the 1990s IIRC, there has been a lot of talk about certain enhanced penalties for “gun crimes”. Even some supposedly on the pro rights side have advocated them, presumably as a compromise to prevent some other, more egregious infringement.
I thought we had dispatched the whole concept years ago, but it came up again in comments here, so I figure it’s time to update some folks who might be new to this game of official, wholesale coercion and persecution of different groups, verses liberty. Besides that, we all know by now that the leftist playbook is very short, and so they have to recycle the old ideas and find a way to make them new again every few years or so.
What you’re saying when you advocate special punishments for “gun crime” is that the same, or very similar, crime committed without a gun is somehow less criminal. What you’re saying is that gun owners are to be treated the way black people were treated before civil rights.
Do you really want to go there?
My sister and her approximately three year old daughter were murdered in their own home by an invader. The killer used a kitchen knife to brutally stab and slash my sister to death, in the presence of her daughter, and then the daughter was strangled to death with a shoestring as the murder weapon.
So you’re saying; “Oh, well thank goodness they were killed with a knife and shoestring, because being shot with a gun would be…just terrible!” And you’re saying to the murderer; “Thank you, my good man, for using a knife and a shoestring instead of a gun. That’s the way we like to see it. Now you’ll get off a little easier.”
WTF..Really?
One of our music store customers in his early teens was minding his own business one night when a carload of other kids stopped, got out, and clubbed him with a baseball bat. He dragged himself some blocks to the steps of a nearby business, and died from the massive head injuries.
“His parents should count their lucky stars their boy wasn’t shot, ’cause that would have been bad news!”
Really?
That’s just as stupid and bigoted as saying that, as an alternative to slavery, we should just have enhanced penalties for black people who commit crimes, and referring to that as “pro civil rights advocacy”. With friends like that I don’t need enemies. I know the enhanced-penalty-for-the-presence-of-guns concept has been bandied about by supposedly pro gun legisladiots, and that you might have been fooled for a moment, but don’t let it happen again. Now you know– such ideas come either from the anti rights movement or from people who can’t think straight and don’t understand what the words “rights” and “justice” mean. We can all do much better without them mucking up the waters.
ETA; Maybe the slavery reference wasn’t the best one. Maybe it should be, “…as stupid and bigoted as saying that, as an alternative to outright lynchings, we should have enhanced penalties for blacks who commit crimes…” Makes everybody happy, right? Everyone gets a little something.
In any case, when we stick to the basic truths, we win. When you compromise the basic principles, you’ve relegated the concept of rights to the back of the bus. You’ve just lost. Creating enhanced penalties for one group verses another is outright dumb, and evil, regardless of the political/tactical environment. If you can’t stand on the principle of basic rights, equality, liberty and justice, well thank you for applying but no– we just can’t use you at this time. Coward.
Quote of the day—Otis Rolley
It is undeniable that we have to do more to reduce the devastating impact gun violence is having on our community. While the courts have consistently ruled against significant gun control legislation, there is still a way to decrease crime: substantially increase the cost of its’ commission.
Increasing the cost of guns won’t work because many criminals don’t purchase new guns and they can be borrowed or even rented in some areas. Therefore, as Mayor, Otis will move to impose a $1 per bullet tax (or about $50 per pack). That will increase substantially the financial cost of committing a crime and, unlike guns, bullets cannot be shared after their initial use. This will also dramatically cut back on the random firings that too often happen around holidays and celebrations.
Otis Rolley
Candidate for Mayor of Baltimore
July 19, 2011
THE ROLLEY PLAN TO MAKE EVERY NEIGHBORHOOD IN BALTIMORE SAFER
[It would appear that Rolley is arithmetically and logically impaired. There would be constitutional challenges to this which almost for certain he would lose because he openly admits, “This is not a revenue enhancement tool”.
But ignoring the constitutional issue with high taxes you would get smuggling with this proposal. Just think about it a bit. What is the tax on recreational drugs in this country or the tax on bullets and guns in the U.K.? Oh yeah! It’s a few years in prison and those items are still readily available. And with the tax on ammunition purchased inside the city limits all he will accomplish is to create a virtual ban on the legal sale of ammunition within the city. This will create a new black market. In other words a Mayor Rolley would increase crime instead of decrease it.
Now the arithmetic part. I don’t have the numbers for just Baltimore but I do have them for the U.S. as a whole. Each year private citizens purchase, and presumably consume, something on the order of 9 billions rounds of ammunition. There are approximately 70,000 injuries or deaths each year due to criminal use of firearms. Suppose that on the average, each of these injuries and deaths were the result of two shots fired. This would mean that his proposed tax would cost people exercising their specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms nearly $9,000,000,000 while costing the criminals only about $140,000. Or a ratio of about 64,000 to 1. This is not a “tax” on criminal use of firearms. It is a “tool” for infringing on people exercising a guaranteed right.
Furthermore looking at it from the standpoint of per criminal use his proposal would increase the cost of the crime, assuming the criminals actually purchased the ammo instead of stealing it or smuggling it in from outside the city, by about $2.00 per crime. When the “cost” of the crime is already many months or years in jail how can anyone think that increasing the cost another $2.00 is going to make a difference?
This guy has crap for brains. No wonder he is running for mayor. He isn’t qualified for a real job.—Joe]
Random thought of the day
Today I left a comment at Snowflakes in Hell on the post Land of the Used to be Free.
Sometimes I wonder if it was that I said something profound or if it was something so crazy that everyone just went silent after I said my thing. This is one of those times. I can’t see that it was all that crazy but then I don’t see anything all that profound in it either.
My brother and I had spent some time chatting on almost this same exact thing yesterday and so I had spent some time thinking about it during the long drive back to my bunker last night. And I incorporated some of those thoughts into my QOTD post yesterday. So I had my response ready from almost the instant I read the title:
The bigger problem, as Sebastian pointed out, is the erosion without consequences. In general the only way this problem can be fixed is for there to be consequences other than voter wrath. There needs to be fines and/or jail time for those that violate our rights and some body, such as the courts but perhaps not, that is specifically tasked with doing nothing but striking down laws that exceed the constitutional authority given to the legislature and/or executive branch.
But that’s not going to happen anytime soon or even perhaps ever unless we set up a new government on the sea floor, the Moon or perhaps Mars. Of course it could also happen if the mid-east gets turned into glass and the new inhabitants set up a different style government after it has had a few years to cool down to a soft green glow.
Another possible path to get out of the mess we are in is for the Federal government to go bankrupt and collapse sort of like the USSR did and we end up with only state governments. Many of those state governments would provide a much more free environment than that currently imposed by the Feds.
The most likely, but still with low probability, is that Feds get into such a poor financial situation that a new wave of politicians get elected with a mandate to scrape all the nanny state crap in an effort to cut expenses. With this entire departments and agencies (energy, education, housing, environment, agriculture, ATF, etc.) get disbanded and all their responsibilities go away too. Sort of a “scorched earth” policy where there is little or no discussion of “cutting back to the essentials”.
Forget a revolution. As my brother pointed out statistically the most likely form of government after a revolution is a dictatorship. I suspect there is a good reason for this. My hypothesis is that in general for a revolution to be successful there needs to be a charismatic leader. Charismatic leaders have a strong tendency to be narcissistic. Narcissists think they are entitled to all the attention and power the world can throw at them. Narcissists don’t give up their power easily. Revolutions and dictators go hand-in-hand.
The lesson to be learned is that revolution is a very, very risky business for those that value liberty. The founders of this country chose their revolutionary leader with extraordinary care. Read some books on George Washington. He had the charisma to lead but he had something else that is probably not only rare but is overlooked by those looking for a leader for their revolution. He was extremely principled. That is an extremely rare quality in our politicians today. The system virtually guarantees people of principle cannot be elected.
Hence we are in a situation where Douglas Adams nails it in The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, “Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.” The same probably can be said of revolutionary leaders.
What do women want?
The number of times the question, “What do women want?” has been asked surely is in the billions. Perhaps Dear Betty has the answer:
It’s as simple as a point-blank head shot inside an elevator. Women want high-caliber men, men with solid stocks, long, strong barrels and magazines that hold plenty of quality ammo. They want straight-shooters with a good reload rate and superior shot placement. They want men who can fire reliably under all conditions, capable of using semi-automatic action for accuracy, or going full auto for suppression purposes. They want men who bring excellent penetration to the battle field, who can be ready for extended action with only basic oiling and maintenance.
They sure as hell DON’T want men whose barrels melt after a few rounds, or who can’t line up properly on the target. They don’t want men with a sticky trigger pull, or whose chamber mechanism jams easily.
Work your slide frequently, keep yourself well-oiled and polished, and carry yourself like you’re packing rifle rounds in a pistol chassis.
And perhaps not. From the disclaimer, “Betty is a gun. This is her advice column, God help us all.”
Oh, and according to Betty, by 2061 you can get a Glock with pearl-handles.
Via email from Dave Devries, the comic artist responsible for Betty and Blue Shift.
Quote of the day—Orrin G. Hatch
When I became chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, I hoped that I would be able to assist in the protection of the constitutional rights of American citizens, rights which have too often been eroded in the belief that government could be relied upon for quick solutions to difficult problems.
Both as an American citizen and as a United States Senator I repudiate this view. I likewise repudiate the approach of those who believe to solve American problems you simply become something other than American. To my mind, the uniqueness of our free institutions, the fact that an American citizen can boast freedoms unknown in any other land, is all the more reason to resist any erosion of our individual rights. When our ancestors forged a land “conceived in liberty”, they did so with musket and rifle. When they reacted to attempts to dissolve their free institutions, and established their identity as a free nation, they did so as a nation of armed freemen. When they sought to record forever a guarantee of their rights, they devoted one full amendment out of ten to nothing but the protection of their right to keep and bear arms against government interference. Under my chairmanship the Subcommittee on the Constitution will concern itself with a proper recognition of, and respect for, this right most valued by free men.
Orrin G. Hatch,
Chairman,
Subcommittee on the Constitution.
FEBRUARY 1982
THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, R E P O R T OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, UNITED STATES SENATE, NINETY-SEVENTH CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION
[And those that do not value this right have no desire to be free. May their chains set lightly upon them, and may posterity forget that they were our countrymen.—Joe]
Mecca
Today I did some more prep for the new explosives manufacturing site. This new place needed a name so a few weeks ago I asked daughter Kim and son-in-law Caleb to try and come up with some names. Caleb almost immediately suggested “New Mecca”. I thought about it some and suggested dropping the “New”. When I told others of the suggestion it received a warm welcome (especially from Barron and Janelle) so “Mecca” it is.
What I did today was put up the Wi-Fi access point. I wasn’t able to test it because the Wi-Fi access point at the provider wasn’t working and no one was home for me to get access and fix it. I think I’m probably going to get my own connection to First Step Research which will be a lot faster and more reliable than the second hand satellite connect I am currently using.
Anyway, here is a picture of the new access point:
The fence post was rather difficult to get into the “ground”. The place it really needed to be was mostly big rocks covered with a few pine needles. I got it into the ground and I hope to be able to test the connection the next time I go back. It’s over a half-mile to the source with partial blocking by the trees and that is a little bit of a concern to me.
Here are the railroad ties donated by Matt and delivered by Barron and unloaded with the help of Kim and Caleb we will use for the new production facility Ry is supervising:
Thanks again guys. We are going to have a great new place to make targets next spring.
Abomination
I finished up Monster Hunter International on Friday and started Monster Hunter Vendetta. There was so much mention made of Owen Z. Pitt’s specially modified Saiga shotgun which he calls “Abomination” that I had to get mine (stock configuration with none of Milow’s modifications) out and do a little shot gunning. Wal-Mart didn’t have any silver buckshot but they had Federal 00 in both 2.75 (9 pellets) and 3 inch magnum shells (15 pellets).
So today I shot up a couple USPSA targets:
Above is three shots of the 2.75” shells from 30’ away. One to the head, one to the center of the body, and one to the lower part of the body. The large holes are the wadding.
This is three shots of the 3” inch magnum shells and two shots of 2.75” #7 birdshot from 30’ away.
Unless there were a specific need for the extra payload I don’t see any need to use the harder recoiling 3” shells. My guess is that when firing multiple shots I can get just as much lead on target in the same amount of time with the 2.75” shells as I can with the 3” shells.
I also dumped a couple twelve round magazines of birdshot on some steel targets as fast as I could acquire a sight picture. That was fun and very invigorating. I need to do that more often.
Getting back to the books. These are really good books. I don’t even mind that Owen’s evil werewolf boss had the same name as my Grandfather. I do wish the troll was named MIkeB302000 instead of Melvin but I suppose that would be insulting to trolls and there might consequences.
And I can’t help but think that our gnome loving, daughter Xenia really should read the gnome fight scene.
Quote of the day—Jeffrey R. Snyder
Those who call for the repeal of the Second Amendment so that we can really begin controlling firearms betray a serious misunderstanding of the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights does not grant rights to the people, such that its repeal would legitimately confer upon government the powers otherwise proscribed. The Bill of Rights is the list of the fundamental, inalienable rights, endowed in man by his Creator, that define what it means to be a free and independent people, the rights which must exist to ensure that government governs only with the consent of the people.
At one time this was even understood by the Supreme Court. In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the first case in which the Court had an opportunity to interpret the Second Amendment, it stated that the right confirmed by the Second Amendment “is not a right granted by the constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.” The repeal of the Second Amendment would no more render the outlawing of firearms legitimate than the repeal of the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment would authorize the government to imprison and kill people at will. A government that abrogates any of the Bill of Rights, with or without majoritarian approval, forever acts illegitimately, becomes tyrannical, and loses the moral right to govern.
This is the uncompromising understanding reflected in the warning that America’s gun owners will not go gently into that good, utopian night: “You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.” While liberals take this statement as evidence of the retrograde, violent nature of gun owners, we gun owners hope that liberals hold equally strong sentiments about their printing presses, word processors, and television cameras. The republic depends upon fervent devotion to all our fundamental rights.
Jeffrey R. Snyder
1993
A Nation of Cowards
[What of the “moral right to govern” when it commits crimes to justify imposing illegal restrictions on gun dealers? It should be no different than a fireman sets fires so they can put them out. It goes beyond losing “the moral right to govern”. They should go to jail or it means those that wish to be our masters, instead of our public servants, have nothing to lose when they attempt to change the relationship. If they get caught and told not to do that they just try something else. There must be a punishment for those that violate their oath of office because otherwise the erosion of our rights will only stop when there are no more rights to be eroded.—Joe]
Proof of training
Because I want to be able to carry while at Gun Blogger Rendezvous this September in Nevada I’m in the process of getting my Arizona carry permit. It’s tough to get a Nevada permit unless you are willing to spend some time down there but they recognize a few other permits. It used to be they recognized Utah which I used to have. No longer. But Arizona just made the list and Arizona is relatively easy to get a permit remotely. I got my fingerprints taken a few days ago but I couldn’t find any proof of training in my Seattle area bunker to send in with the application. I rummaged through the garage in Idaho this afternoon and found a few certificates. I scanned them and made copies to send to Arizona. Here are the ones I thought they would be the most interested in. Since they require 8 hours of training and I have proof of 53 hours (it’s actually far more than that, this is just what I could find) I presume this will get the job done.
I highly recommend all of these classes. I learned a lot from them.
Quote of the day—Josh Sugarmann
When it comes to gun control, the American public is way ahead of our elected officials. Americans overwhelmingly want health and safety regulation of the gun industry. A significant percentage, in some areas a majority, favor a handgun ban and, in virtually every part of the country, more Americans favor a handgun ban than own handguns.
Josh Sugarmann
March 15, 2000
New Survey Reveals More Americans Favor Handgun Ban Than Own Handguns
[The actual number, according to Sugarmann’s own numbers is that 36.6% of the people in the U.S. asked said they support a handgun ban while 24.8% own handguns. I’m not sure why the number of people who own handguns is relevant here other than for Sugarmann to pretend to have something to crow about. Does he think that the 36.6% of the people wanting to ban handguns would be able to take them away from the 24.8% that own them? Let’s explore that a little bit.
Assuming one shot is required per person that attempts to take a handgun away. That means on the average each handgun owner needs to have about 1.5 rounds of ammo to not even need to set their beer down and get up out of the easy chair when dealing with those criminals. Of course if it were me and I had to defend my property against criminals attempting to take it from me by force I would sue the survivors and/or their estate for the cleaning service for both my home and my gun, the time lost, and the ammo I used. It’s a lot more effort that just pulling the trigger a few times and calling the cops but I think it sends a message when they have to pay for the dispatch as well as disposal costs.
In a more serious frame of mind the number of real interest that Sugarmann avoided reporting is that 63.4% did not support banning handguns. And unless you are talking about a Constitutional Amendment what does the number people wanting to infringe a specific enumerated right matter at all? If there were more people that wanted to enslave people with black skin than there were people who had black skin does it really matter on any scale you want to measure it by? In either case if someone tries to implement something that clearly over the line it’s “game on”.
Keep in mind this was over 11 years ago so it’s possible that Sugarmann has raised his estimation of the I.Q. of those that read his garbage and this now longer represents the quality of his work. But I wouldn’t count on it. He’s been in the business of deceiving the public for so long I doubt that he even knows how to be ethical.—Joe]
Ok, That Is Pretty Cool
I’ve come to shrug my shoulders at the various “flying car” ideas out there. Most of them have never flown, and probably never will, despite having the flight specs listed on the their web sites. There are of course helicopters and auto gyros, but I don’t know of any highway rated ones.
This one is already in the air and the road, and seemingly ready to go.
I want the option of putting floats on mine, and skis, plus four wheel drive, and it needs to able to carry four people, the dog, and a week’s worth of camping supplies for the family, my tools, several rifles and a couple thousand rounds of ammo. I’ll have to wait for the “F150 4 x 4” version, and then get it used, ’cause I can’t afford a quarter mil. You early adopters will no doubt be a great help.
TSA gets frowned at
They should be sent to prison for deprivation of rights under the color of law but a Federal Judge frowning at the TSA and telling them to get public comment on the body scanners is better than nothing.
I recognize that gun!
I recognize the gun, the shooter, the time, and the place.
Quote of the day—Wayne LaPierre
The Right to Keep and Bear Arms in defense of self, family and country is ultimately self evident and is part of the Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution. Reduced to its core, it is about fundamental individual freedom, human worth, and self-destiny.
We reject the notion that American gun owners must accept any lesser amount of freedom in order to be accepted among the international community. Our Founding Fathers long ago rejected that notion and forged our great nation on the principle of freedom for the individual citizen – not for the government.
…
The cornerstone of our freedom is the Second Amendment. Neither the United Nations, nor any other foreign influence, has the authority to meddle with the freedoms guaranteed by our Bill of Rights, endowed by our Creator, and due to all humankind.
Wayne LaPierre
July 14, 2011
NRA Delivers Remarks at United Nations Concerning Proposed Arms Trade Treaty
[The rest of the remarks are of a similar tone. It’s not that long and it’s worth reading the whole thing.
Although it would take two thirds of the Senate and an anti-gun president to get it through I have often considered a version of this treaty as the biggest threat we are facing. An anti-gun president isn’t that hard to come by and in the long term thirds of the Senate might be feasible under some circumstances.
MAIG also deserves a high ranking but their agenda is more susceptible to local political action and court challenges. A ratified treaty is a much different and more difficult beast to deal with.—Joe]
Ten years and $1,000,000 fine
I wonder if this is why President Obama is ramping up his fundraising machine (H/T to Cam Edwards).
I still think BoomershootWife has the better idea about what to do with him.
Following the letter of the law
I find this rather funny. As explained by Brennan B. on the gun.mail discussion from work yesterday:
For anyone who’s been lusting after a handgun that’s not on California’s “safe” list, a new workaround for that infernal list has recently surfaced.
…
Basically it involves converting the handgun into a single-shot with overall length >10″ in order to qualify for the target pistol exception to the handgun list. Then it can be legally sold to you. Once you’ve completed the paperwork and waiting period it’s your gun, at which point you can legally hire a gunsmith to change out the clowny-looking ~8″ barrel back out for a standard one, and un-pin the 0-round magazine from the frame. Then you can sell those parts back to the shop that did the single-shot conversion.
Note that this work can be done in-state which means the gunsmith hired to do the conversion, the FFL from which you buy the gun, and the gunsmith that converts it back can all be the same guy.
Prohibition of things doesn’t work. It doesn’t matter what you are trying to prohibit. You can only punish actions.
Ruben Navarrette Jr. thinks he lives in a dictatorship
Sometimes you just have to shake your head and suggest people like Ruben Navarrette, Jr. should go live in North Korea or something:
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has decided to try to clean up Dodge City by requiring gun dealers in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas to report bulk sales of semi-automatic weapons. That requirement already exists for handgun purchases. If an individual walks into a gun shop on the border and buys two or more guns within a five-day period, the agency wants to know about it.
That makes sense. Some of those are likely headed to Mexico. And if you want to go after drug traffickers, start by taking their guns. If you can seize the drugs, fine. But without guns, the bad guys can’t protect themselves or defend their product. So they’re out of business.
Who could find fault with this approach by law enforcement? The National Rifle Association, which claims the reporting requirement infringes on the Second Amendment and the right of individuals to bear arms.
Do you remember the part of the Constitution where it says that people have the right to buy two or more automatic weapons within five days without law enforcement knowing anything about it?
Someone should remind Ruben Navarrette Jr. that there is nothing in the constitution that says the ATF or even President Obama get to make law all by themselves. The existing law explicitly says the reporting requirement the ATF and Navarrette desire is not allowed. Little things like changing Federal law require the change be voted on by both the House and the Senate.
But then it’s pretty easy to tell that Navarrette isn’t a big fan of the constitution and probably not even the existence of the House and the Senate. North Korea should suit him well.
Quote of the day—bob r
If you cut out the tumor, what is it going to be replaced by?
If you kill the rabid dog, what is it going to be replaced by?
If you cut out the gangrene, what is it going to be replaced by?
If you remove the mudslide from the road, what is it going to be replaced by?
If you remove the nail from the tire, what is it going to be replaced by?
If you remove the excess fat from your ass, what is it going to be replaced by?
If you remove the worm from the apple, what is it going to be replaced by?
If you remove the slug from the garden, what is it going to be replaced by?
If you remove the hornet nest from the entry way, what is it going to be replaced by?
bob r
July 14, 2011
Comment to Random thought of the day in response to ubu52 asking, “If TSA goes away, what is it going to be replaced by?”
[As Say Uncle has said, “Same planet, different worlds”.
ubu52, and many others, have completely different base assumptions about the world we live in, politics, and human nature than I and the people I usually associate with do. This makes it hard to have meaningful discussions let alone share the same government.—Joe]
Gambling with Societal Stability
That title reads like it’s from one of the pathetic doctoral theses that students are forced to write, and that no one will ever read, doesn’t it?
No, I’m talking about gambling, or “gaming” as a business.
Gambling, it was said, should be outlawed because of the horrific problems that can result from it. Some people, lured by the prospect of easy money, cannot control themselves, and so on. And so gambling was outlawed. To save us from ourselves. It’s based on the thoroughly Marxist tenet that says; if we’re allowed to make our own decisions, we’ll surely mess up everything. Because we suck.
Oh, but wait; there can be a lot of money to be made in gambling, so we should have a state lottery! Cool! Think of all the sweet, sweet money!
Now, all of sudden, and just because the government owns it, gambling is WONDERFUL! Why, look at all the things it funds! Think of The Children!
The Washington State Lottery has been running radio ads telling us of all the beautiful, wonderful, loving things that the lottery does for all of us and our community. They quote the happy winners and urge us to gamble like there’s no tomorrow, imploring us to ask ourselves with the catchy phrase; “Who’s world could YOU change?”
See, you cops and you in the justice system and you legislators; this is how the remaining shreds of respect for the law, and law enforcement, are being eroded.
It’s the worst, most destructive thing in the world when WE deoit, but it’s the very definition of beauty and all things holy when YOU do it.
I have a friendly tip for you in this regard– FUCK YOU! You’re not helping to stabilize your communities with this sort of crap. You’re helping to de-stabilize your communities with the enforcement of laws that punish people who HAVEN’T violated anyone’s rights.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is why, if we’re going to de-criminalize drugs, we must keep the drug trade as far out of the hands of government as possible. This is the sort of crap that led to the creation of the BATFE following the horrors of Prohibition, if you know your history.
If we follow that horrid model, let’s see; “We gave some of the gambling to Indian tribes, so maybe we can give the pot trade to…hmmm…maybe the Hispanic Americans? Maybe the poor white trailer trash? Or should they be given the meth trade? Oh what the hell, lets have the government play the role that used to be played by the syndicated crime gangs that the government created with substance laws in the first place. Sure—they own it already, by rights. Fine, now what about prostitution?”
I’ve been asking the question for years; haven’t we learned a single thing from the Prohibition era? Now I’m wondering. Maybe we did learn something from Prohibition. Maybe we learned that there’s a ton of money and power to be gained from making certain things illegal, causing a bunch of crime and chaos, ratcheting up the law enforcement and reaching for more “tools” for said enforcement, then when it’s so far out of control that the people are saying they’ve had enough and they’re demanding “something” be done, government takes it over where the gangs left off. State pot dispensaries, AND we still have all the 4th amendment incursions we had during the drug “war” AND we still have the DEA. “Top down, bottom up, inside out” (that model fits perfectly here, so if you haven’t heard of it, you had better start googling it. We’re being set up). And you people think it’s a freaking great idea. Suckers. Fools. Dupes. You think you’re for freedom, and you’ll be begging for this shit, as an improvement. Just as it was planned. The BATFEM, here we come. You’ll call for it, thinking yourself clever, but you’re just someone else’s Stradivari.
On the other hand, we could have a free society, like we were promised after the Revolution. Now which would you rather? A free society, or a government-run, hypocritical shit hole with different rules for different groups of people and still different rules for government-run businesses? We fought a revolution over much less than this, and defeated the most powerful military in the world in the process. Americans tend to think freedom is worth fighting for. It’s in our blood.