PDA

View Full Version : 2nd amendment question



JohnnyCache
11th July 10, 03:56 PM
My question for the forum's second amendment believers is this:

IF it was a given that some gun law would negate a good deal of crime (it's a hypothetical, one contrary to my personal beliefs, fwiw)

Would you be for that law for practical reasons, or against it for constitutional ones?

We often address this issue from a position of real harm. What if free arms DID make the country a little less safer? What if someone proved that to you? Would it change your thinking about the second amendment? Or is safety NOT worth liberty?

FriendlyFire
11th July 10, 04:46 PM
It would have to depend on the degree it is doing harm. Guns are not on the same level of free speech, if we got hate speech laws like Canada I would be furious. I think every KKK member should be able to march and rant as they like. So I can understand keeping them on principle, but if they are clearly causing mass harm at some point pragmatism wins out. Where that line is drawn would be different for everyone. Some patriotic survivalist type people would say "give me liberty of give me death", and some angry mom's would say one gun caused death is reason to ban them all.

Personally, I would be slightly on the side of keep them on principle, but only slightly. You could argue that cars kill WAY more people, and we keep them only on principle, but that is getting a little far off.

Still, all evidence points to guns reduce crime, so in reality it's a non-issue but I understand the thought experiment you are doing.

Kein Haar
11th July 10, 05:10 PM
Analagously...I fully accept and acknowledge that when weed is legalized, greater numbers of people will smoke weed, and there will be negative social costs associated with that freedom.

HappyOldGuy
11th July 10, 05:21 PM
Still, all evidence points to guns reduce crime, so in reality it's a non-issue but I understand the thought experiment you are doing.

It really doesn't. Mind you, it doesn't point the other way either. The big problem is that cause and effect is almost always backwards. Gun control doesn't raise crime rates. Rather it's a common response to rising crime rates (or the perception thereof). The only decent case study I've ever read that showed an effect showed a very modest effect of minor property crime moving to surrounding jurisdictions.

Zendetta
11th July 10, 07:00 PM
Fuck no, keep 'em.

There are all manner of authoritarian measures that would "reduce crime".

Massively curtailing freedom of association, or freely allowing various kinds of un-pc profiling would certainly reduce crime - but those measures are plainly repulsive.

TheMightyMcClaw
11th July 10, 08:40 PM
My question for the forum's second amendment believers is this:

IF it was a given that some gun law would negate a good deal of crime (it's a hypothetical, one contrary to my personal beliefs, fwiw)

Would you be for that law for practical reasons, or against it for constitutional ones?

We often address this issue from a position of real harm. What if free arms DID make the country a little less safer? What if someone proved that to you? Would it change your thinking about the second amendment? Or is safety NOT worth liberty?

If I had reason to believe that the outlawing of firearms would save lives and increase the well-being of the populace, I would totally be behind that.
If I had reason to believe that legally requiring all adults to carry to carry a sidearm at all times would save lives and increase the well-being of the populace, I would totally be behind that as well.
I don't believe either of those things, but the point is:
Fuck principles. Results are what matter.

Ajamil
11th July 10, 09:03 PM
And when a cultivated principle is the desired result?

danno
11th July 10, 09:03 PM
i thought the whole point was the liberty idea above safety and whatever. so even if it does save lives, it's not worth it because communism.

JohnnyCache
11th July 10, 09:24 PM
i thought the whole point was the liberty idea above safety and whatever. so even if it does save lives, it's not worth it because communism.

Actually, the American founding fathers were supposedly experimenting with a post-monarchy economy and government, and held the belief that power in the hands of citizens was safe. Belief that people could be trusted with arms was part of their philosophy.

danno
11th July 10, 09:30 PM
Actually, the American founding fathers were supposedly experimenting with a post-monarchy economy and government, and held the belief that power in the hands of citizens was safe. Belief that people could be trusted with arms was part of their philosophy.

yes, that's the other argument. the people need guns to usurp a bastardly government.

but also, freeeedoooooom. so the citizens must be allowed to keep their weapons, regardless of the safety costs or benefits.

JohnnyCache
11th July 10, 09:39 PM
yes, that's the other argument. the people need guns to usurp a bastardly government.

but also, freeeedoooooom. so the citizens must be allowed to keep their weapons, regardless of the safety costs or benefits.

No, that's NOT the argument. That's kind of what I'm asking about, but the actual, original argument was that people are essentially good and can be trusted with power.

danno
11th July 10, 09:46 PM
well, these are the arguments i usually hear.

if the "original" argument was that people are essentially good and can be trusted with power, then this just sounds like democracy to me. the people decide how the nation must move forward, plus they own weapons and can usurp when the leaders stop listening.

right?

JohnnyCache
11th July 10, 10:15 PM
Begs the question, "Why didn't the founders go with a straight democracy?"

danno
11th July 10, 10:24 PM
a hypothetical - what if you created a "government" that only consisted of a few "managers" who did some organising and paperworky stuff, but aren't allowed to make any decisions. every single decision is voted on by the public via the internet. the managers are regularly audited by multiple independent investigators.

that sounds like the ultimate small government democracy to me.

danno
11th July 10, 10:26 PM
if the "original" argument was that people are essentially good and can be trusted with power, then this just sounds like democracy to me. the people decide how the nation must move forward, plus they own weapons and can usurp when the leaders stop listening.

the other thing i was going to say - what happens when these same people vote that guns should be banned? should the government stop them because it is unconstitutional or something? would the people have to violently overthrow the government to have their weapons banned?

JohnnyCache
11th July 10, 11:12 PM
the other thing i was going to say - what happens when these same people vote that guns should be banned? should the government stop them because it is unconstitutional or something? would the people have to violently overthrow the government to have their weapons banned?

The majority isn't always correct. Majority opinion does need some checks on it.

bob
11th July 10, 11:28 PM
My question for the forum's second amendment believers is this:

IF it was a given that some gun law would negate a good deal of crime (it's a hypothetical, one contrary to my personal beliefs, fwiw)

Would you be for that law for practical reasons, or against it for constitutional ones?

We often address this issue from a position of real harm. What if free arms DID make the country a little less safer? What if someone proved that to you? Would it change your thinking about the second amendment? Or is safety NOT worth liberty?

Safety is not homogenous.

An individual may feel that they are more safe with a gun and be quite possibly correct. If the country is more safe or less safe is probably of less concern to people than themselves and their neighbourhood.

danno
11th July 10, 11:30 PM
The majority isn't always correct. Majority opinion does need some checks on it.

isn't that the definition of tyranny? how do you decide when the people are wrong and the government is right?

MrGalt
11th July 10, 11:58 PM
Safety is not homogenous.

An individual may feel that they are more safe with a gun and be quite possibly correct. If the country is more safe or less safe is probably of less concern to people than themselves and their neighbourhood.

This right here. Even in this hypothetical world Johnny Cache is promoting I'm kinda concerned with exactly WHO is going to be kept safe, not whether the country has 8,000 murders a year instead of 16,000. If outlawing guns kept a thousand meth dealers from getting shot but allowed a hundred more single mothers to be strangled I don't support it.

Murder rates are of course independent of available means. See the USSR's murder rate and gun ownership laws for more. Even if that weren't true, I'm very concerned with exactly who's getting shot before I'm willing to just unilaterally declare that the best of all possible worlds is the one in which the highest percentage of the population lives the longest time.

HappyOldGuy
11th July 10, 11:59 PM
But what about meth dealing single mothers? Don't they have the right to protect themselves?

MrGalt
12th July 10, 12:04 AM
But what about meth dealing single mothers? Don't they have the right to protect themselves?

Nope, they're felons. Felons lose some rights. That's the deal.

HappyOldGuy
12th July 10, 12:05 AM
Nope, they're felons. Felons lose some rights. That's the deal.

Not till they get caught and convicted.

MrGalt
12th July 10, 12:13 AM
Not till they get caught and convicted.

So using a weapon in the commission of a crime is legally protected because the trial hasn't taken place yet? I don't think you're going to find much agreement with that one.

More sincerely, it's murky for me. Let's say there's a single mother who sells meth and owns a (so far) legal firearm. Should she get to take it with her on a deal in case things go south? No, I don't think so. Should she be able to use it to defend her family in the case of a home invasion? Yeah, I kinda think so. But would there have been a home invasion if she didn't associate with drug addicts who knew there was cash in the house? Well...damn.

So I guess in the interest of consistency your line is as good as any. When the judge bangs the gavel and she is magically transformed from a criminal to a felon, she loses her second amendment rights for the simple reason that allowing her to retain them would be ridiculous.

I'm off to work so this thread will have left me behind before I return. Thanks for making me think more than you might have intended though.

BadUglyMagic
12th July 10, 09:24 AM
My question for the forum's second amendment believers is this:

IF it was a given that some gun law would negate a good deal of crime (it's a hypothetical, one contrary to my personal beliefs, fwiw)

Would you be for that law for practical reasons, or against it for constitutional ones?

We often address this issue from a position of real harm. What if free arms DID make the country a little less safer? What if someone proved that to you? Would it change your thinking about the second amendment? Or is safety NOT worth liberty?


Would you define "crime" for the purposes of you scenario ? Also, how would you quantify a "good deal of"?

What is the depth and breadth of this hypothetical "law"? Please write an example.

Specific examples are necessary to have any idea of the social outcome possiblities.

Robot Jesus
12th July 10, 12:19 PM
isn't that the definition of tyranny? how do you decide when the people are wrong and the government is right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
12th July 10, 01:32 PM
Nobody actually believes that gun ownership stops the governent of the US doing pretty much what the fuck it wants, do they?

Kiko
12th July 10, 01:41 PM
Begs the question, "Why didn't the founders go with a straight democracy?"

If they had today's technology, they probably would have. It took long enough to travel or send messages letters back then. I could be wrong, but I recall being taught that part of the reason we're not a pure democracy has to do with distance and travel time required to reach a consensus.

Cullion
12th July 10, 02:20 PM
I wish Americans would read their own goddamn constitutional documents.

No, 'it took a long time to post a letter' is not the main reason you aren't a pure democracy.

Cullion
12th July 10, 02:22 PM
but also, freeeedoooooom. so the citizens must be allowed to keep their weapons, regardless of the safety costs or benefits.

It's kind of a moot point because anti-gun laws have repeatedly failed to reduce gun crime in any English speaking country I can think of. Including Australia.

Phrost
12th July 10, 02:55 PM
Laws don't prevent crime.

The consequences of breaking laws may or may not prevent crime; some argue that they don't.

The primary reason for preserving gun rights is to serve as a hedge against tyranny and to preserve the sovereignty of the individual against the collective.

Kein Haar
12th July 10, 03:49 PM
Well, they don't physically prevent a crime from taking place, but they take the theoretical benefit out of standard tribal relations. Pre-emptive strikes and generational vendettas etc within peoples who we would NOT otherwise consider "criminals" according to our current understanding of them.

To a large degree.

Kiko
12th July 10, 03:53 PM
I wish Americans would read their own goddamn constitutional documents.

No, 'it took a long time to post a letter' is not the main reason you aren't a pure democracy.

Do educate us then. I don't seem to have my copy of the constitution handy.

Cullion
12th July 10, 03:56 PM
It's not in the Constitution, it's in the Federalist Papers.

http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/federalist/

The whole point of a constitutional republic is to protect individuals and minorities (including the wealthy) from a tyranny of the majority.

From the 10th paper.



The inference to which we are brought is, that the causes of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its effects.

If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote. It may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution. When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed. Let me add that it is the great desideratum by which this form of government can be rescued from the opprobrium under which it has so long labored, and be recommended to the esteem and adoption of mankind.

By what means is this object attainable? Evidently by one of two only. Either the existence of the same passion or interest in a majority at the same time must be prevented, or the majority, having such coexistent passion or interest, must be rendered, by their number and local situation, unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression. If the impulse and the opportunity be suffered to coincide, we well know that neither moral nor religious motives can be relied on as an adequate control. They are not found to be such on the injustice and violence of individuals, and lose their efficacy in proportion to the number combined together, that is, in proportion as their efficacy becomes needful.

Kiko
12th July 10, 03:58 PM
I'm looking it up now. I'm finding it somewhat ironic.

I also think what I'm recalling is an explanation given to kids who couldn't grasp this.

SFGOON
12th July 10, 04:08 PM
The answer to crime is street-side beatings for gross misdemeanors, along with fines and imprisonment.

English common law applies, you can't dole out the beating unless you witness the crime. But once the crime is witnessed, you are restrained and beaten until you cry and have minor but transient physical marks.

You are then returned to your homies, peeps, or folks in a bloodied condition, tears in your eyes, fine in hand.

Beating the shit out of someone works where common decency and order refuse to prevail. It's one of the few remedies for psychopathic behavior.

danno
12th July 10, 08:24 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

that was the response i was looking for. i was going to say something like "so how do we decide when democracy is tyranny and when it isn't?", but you might be starting to get my point.

i don't think things are so black and white. it's grey, and i think that policy making sometimes just takes a lot of common sense thinking. even if a conclusion is made which may contradict a lofty ideal.

danno
12th July 10, 08:28 PM
It's kind of a moot point because anti-gun laws have repeatedly failed to reduce gun crime in any English speaking country I can think of. Including Australia.

yeah, it's really hard to draw a correlation between gun crime and laws. it doesn't seem to cause so much harm whether guns are pretty pervasive or not.

just a theory, it may depend on cultural context. depending on how the local people like to behave, it may be good or bad.

HappyOldGuy
12th July 10, 08:56 PM
It's not in the Constitution, it's in the Federalist Papers.

http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/federalist/

The whole point of a constitutional republic is to protect individuals and minorities (including the wealthy) from a tyranny of the majority.

From the 10th paper.

Absotively, but it is important to remember in any discussion about what the ofunders intended that they didn't agree on anything. Madison was on one side of a fairly heated (as in just short of revolutionary violence) conflict back in his day.

Phrost
12th July 10, 09:45 PM
Negative rights, such as the ones enshrined in the Bill of Rights, serve as a hedge against tyranny of the majority. As does limited government.

danno
12th July 10, 10:16 PM
Negative rights, such as the ones enshrined in the Bill of Rights, serve as a hedge against tyranny of the majority. As does limited government.

could you explain this a bit further? an example?

resolve
12th July 10, 10:48 PM
Beating the shit out of someone works where common decency and order refuse to prevail. It's one of the few remedies for psychopathic behavior.


http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/7351/seal9.jpg

Keith
12th July 10, 10:50 PM
Suppose I said something like "if I could prove, irrefutably, that God exists and affects the world around you, would you spend more time in church on Sunday?" The implications of God's irrefutable existence on science would be so important that whether or not I went to some building on a certain day of the week and sang hymns seems tremendously trivial. The proposal in the OP strikes me the same way.

Phrost
13th July 10, 07:31 AM
could you explain this a bit further? an example?

An example would be nearly every government in history up until 1776, and even many since. Negative rights limit the power of government, shifting the balance of power to the individual.

"Congress shall make no law...."

Cullion
13th July 10, 08:31 AM
could you explain this a bit further? an example?

Freedom of speech is a simple example. The US constitution forbids the US government from restricting what opinions people express.

In a democracy without such constitutional restraints, ill-thought-out mass hysteria about an unpopular opinion could lead the government to ban certain opinions simply because they were (momentarily) deeply unpopular. This is an example of a 'tyranny of the majority'.

This can even be fake mass hysteria where mass media outlets claim that 'everybody' is upset about something, when really it's the newspaper's owner and/or senior staff who are ruffled about it.

Which is what we have in most of the EU.

danno
13th July 10, 11:43 PM
right, i hadn't heard it described as "negative rights" before.

Big Dozer
14th July 10, 12:02 AM
I dont like all these if games. I personally own guns and I am a member of the NRA. But I am a member for the benedict, not for political reasons. I mainly use guns as a hobby. Its very relaxing for me. But I do know a lot of people who use a gun as a tool.

Ajamil
14th July 10, 05:19 AM
"for the benedict?"

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
14th July 10, 05:45 AM
The NFA have a secret eggs Benedict recipe only given out to members.

Kiko
14th July 10, 08:38 AM
The Pope is in the NRA?

Now it all makes sense!

Big Dozer
14th July 10, 01:37 PM
Chuck Norris is in the NRA

Shotgun Christening
14th July 10, 01:45 PM
Or is safety NOT worth liberty?


Safety is not worth Liberty. It would start with guns and slide down the proverbial slipperry slope.

Shotgun Christening
14th July 10, 01:51 PM
The answer to crime is street-side beatings for gross misdemeanors, along with fines and imprisonment.

English common law applies, you can't dole out the beating unless you witness the crime. But once the crime is witnessed, you are restrained and beaten until you cry and have minor but transient physical marks.

You are then returned to your homies, peeps, or folks in a bloodied condition, tears in your eyes, fine in hand.

Beating the shit out of someone works where common decency and order refuse to prevail. It's one of the few remedies for psychopathic behavior.


Life always comes to down to "is what Im about to do/say really worth getting my ass beat over?"
If there was a REAL chance you would get your teeth knocked out for telling some guy to go fuck himself because he took the only cleaned out basket at Walmart , more people would check their tongues.

Phrost
14th July 10, 02:48 PM
Safety is never worth Liberty. Many of the African slaves in the 19th century had Safety.

Liberty is facing peril in order to exist on your own merits, by your own will, and with no master but the same.

Shotgun Christening
14th July 10, 03:27 PM
Safety is never worth Liberty. Many of the African slaves in the 19th century had Safety.

Liberty is facing peril in order to exist on your own merits, by your own will, and with no master but the same.


Copy Cat

Spade: The Real Snake
14th July 10, 03:41 PM
PHROST didn't reference WALMART to support HIS point.

Robot Jesus
14th July 10, 03:56 PM
Safety is never worth Liberty. Many of the African slaves in the 19th century had Safety.

Liberty is facing peril in order to exist on your own merits, by your own will, and with no master but the same.
is this always true? would a child soldier from the Congo willingly trade his rifle for a plow and the occasional whipping? I don't think anyone here is in a position to answer that question.

BadUglyMagic
14th July 10, 04:46 PM
is this always true? would a child soldier from the Congo willingly trade his rifle for a plow and the occasional whipping? I don't think anyone here is in a position to answer that question.


Child soldiers do not have safety and do not have liberty. Their survival depends on killing, maiming and raping others. They have been characterized as enslaved and brainwashed.

Ajamil
14th July 10, 04:54 PM
would a child soldier from the Congo willingly trade his rifle for a plow and the occasional whipping? I don't think anyone here is in a position to answer that question.Only be one chain to another, but you're right on the second part.

Shotgun Christening
14th July 10, 05:31 PM
PHROST didn't reference WALMART to support HIS point.


I was talking about THIS post.

http://www.sociocide.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1565943&postcount=51

Spade: The Real Snake
14th July 10, 05:35 PM
I was talking about THIS post.

http://www.sociocide.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1565943&postcount=51
Let's see your receipt.

Shotgun Christening
14th July 10, 05:54 PM
Let's see your receipt.


MOM34 is gonna beat you FickleFingerofFate....I mean stupid.

Robot Jesus
14th July 10, 06:05 PM
Child soldiers do not have safety and do not have liberty. Their survival depends on killing, maiming and raping others. They have been characterized as enslaved and brainwashed.


probably could have come up with a better example. the point I was trying to make is this, how much of the "freedom v safety" meme is biased on being raised on american propaganda and how much is human nature. maybe after a point freedom is safety. if your living in fear from an outside force you can't really be at liberty. sure the surf may think the lord is an asshat, but bowing to him sure beats sleeping in shifts with your oldest son in case the bandits choose tonight.

BadUglyMagic
14th July 10, 06:30 PM
probably could have come up with a better example. the

point I was trying to make is this, how much of the "freedom v safety" meme is

biased on being raised on american propaganda and how much is human

nature. maybe after a point freedom is safety. if your living in fear from an

outside force you can't really be at liberty. sure the surf may think the lord is

an asshat, but bowing to him sure beats sleeping in shifts with your oldest

son in case the bandits choose tonight.



The "American Experiment" was a revolutionary idea. Pun intended.

"American propaganda"?

The serf was an productive asset tied to the land.

The Second Amendment allows citizens to deal with bandits.

I do not see most of the cultural arguments working because US citizens are not europeans. Think pioneering spirit, cowboys, the wild west, self determination, lots of other American national iconic images. What are most of the european sterotypes and slights about Americans based on?

HappyOldGuy
14th July 10, 08:42 PM
probably could have come up with a better example. the point I was trying to make is this, how much of the "freedom v safety" meme is biased on being raised on american propaganda and how much is human nature. maybe after a point freedom is safety. if your living in fear from an outside force you can't really be at liberty. sure the surf may think the lord is an asshat, but bowing to him sure beats sleeping in shifts with your oldest son in case the bandits choose tonight.

Given that phrosts example defines being able to be beaten or starved on a whim as safety...

But dead people are well known for their free and loose ways.

Ajamil
14th July 10, 09:30 PM
What are most of the european sterotypes and slights about Americans based on?
http://www.zoneshot.com/server/dg/europe.vs.america.jpg

Robot Jesus
14th July 10, 10:54 PM
The "American Experiment" was a revolutionary idea. Pun intended.

"American propaganda"?
I've been fed "give me liberty or give me death" since I can remember. perhapse propaganda was too charged a term, is "indoctrination into the essential myth of american society" better? I mean myth in the Platonic sense.


The serf was an productive asset tied to the land.

The Second Amendment allows citizens to deal with bandits.

and it was in a sense. they where required to be armed to some degree but the lords authority came from being a mother fucker. they follow because he is the most dangerous person in the tri sate area.

I digress, my post was not intended as an attack on the 2nd amendment, but an exploration of the concept of "safety v freedom"

personally I feel that the firearms issue is little more then a great distraction, a way for the masses to be controlled while the real issues are slipped by through slight of hand. if the government ever tries to disarm the population it will either be a laughable failure, or too late to stop the slide into tyranny. if they come for your guns you either A: can crack a beer and watch them fuck it up, or
B: the chance for revolution has already passed, shave where you want your bar code.

Shotgun Christening
15th July 10, 05:38 AM
I've been fed "give me liberty or give me death" since I can remember. perhapse propaganda was too charged a term, is "indoctrination into the essential myth of american society" better? I mean myth in the Platonic sense.

Its more of a truth.



and it was in a sense. they where required to be armed to some degree but the lords authority came from being a mother fucker. they follow because he is the most dangerous person in the tri sate area.

His authority came from him being the only person with a real weapon and having a larger group of people with real weapons that would come in and kill you for disobeying.



I digress, my post was not intended as an attack on the 2nd amendment, but an exploration of the concept of "safety v freedom"

The government will tkae liberties away for the sake of "safety". when you lose a liberty you are less free.



personally I feel that the firearms issue is little more then a great distraction, a way for the masses to be controlled while the real issues are slipped by through slight of hand. if the government ever tries to disarm the population it will either be a laughable failure, or too late to stop the slide into tyranny. if they come for your guns you either A: can crack a beer and watch them fuck it up, or
B: the chance for revolution has already passed, shave where you want your bar code.


You live up north dont you?

BadUglyMagic
15th July 10, 08:54 AM
What oldman said.

Phrost
15th July 10, 11:55 AM
is this always true? would a child soldier from the Congo willingly trade his rifle for a plow and the occasional whipping? I don't think anyone here is in a position to answer that question.
See that whole "choice" bit? You don't get a choice when you're a slave. But as a free man, you have ample opportunity to give up your freedom.

Cullion
15th July 10, 01:59 PM
What are most of the european sterotypes and slights about Americans based on?

The negative stereotypes centre around loudness, bellicosity, obesity and being badly educated.

Not all Europeans are knee-jerk anti-Americans, however.

BadUglyMagic
15th July 10, 02:15 PM
The negative stereotypes centre around loudness, bellicosity, obesity and being badly educated.




Not English futbol fans, stereotypes of Americans.

Cullion
15th July 10, 02:17 PM
English football hooligans are all those things plus alcoholism.

Jim_Jude
15th July 10, 07:41 PM
Analagously...I fully accept and acknowledge that when weed is legalized, greater numbers of people will smoke weed, and there will be negative social costs associated with that freedom.

Will those hypothetical negative social costs outweight the current cost of the "war on drugs" that includes such a benign substance as marijuana? the cost of drug enforcement against marijuana and the cost for the legal system, the cost of imprisoning all non-violent marijuana drug law offenders, etc etc

I fully accept that the negative social cost associated with legalizing/decriminalizing marijuana will have much less of a negative impact on society than the current situation does.

Kein Haar
15th July 10, 07:44 PM
The negative stereotypes centre around loudness, bellicosity, obesity and being badly educated.



Looks like the U.S. and U.K. will be brohans for the forseeable future. It's like they are brothers with a stormy childhood, but who grew up and are now best buds.

There should be an exchange program where we go to Greece and act like a-holes, and you guys can do the same in Cancun. Just for a change of pace.

Ajamil
15th July 10, 08:27 PM
Brothers...except the UK sired the US.

resolve
15th July 10, 09:36 PM
gI1fCMmir1Y

Cullion
16th July 10, 04:21 PM
Looks like the U.S. and U.K. will be brohans for the forseeable future. It's like they are brothers with a stormy childhood, but who grew up and are now best buds.

There should be an exchange program where we go to Greece and act like a-holes, and you guys can do the same in Cancun. Just for a change of pace.

Ah!

It would be like the good old days where the little brown people were friendly and naive because they didn't know what to expect.

But I'll tell you what we're really interested in.

The Philippines. Oh yeah.

Cullion
16th July 10, 04:24 PM
There are positive stereotypes in Yurop about Americans too, you know.

Zendetta
16th July 10, 07:14 PM
The Philippines. Oh yeah.

You could party all night in Manila for the change in your pocket, and still have money left over to buy the girls breakfast.

Big Dozer
16th July 10, 07:17 PM
My last instructor was an ex-marine. He said when he was stationed in the Philippines he had the pleasure of experiencing a Phillippino Fuck Basket. Which due to STD's today isnt seen as much.

Jim_Jude
16th July 10, 07:26 PM
My last instructor was an ex-marine. He said when he was stationed in the Philippines he had the pleasure of experiencing a Phillippino Fuck Basket. Which due to STD's today isnt seen as much.

Yeah, I heard the legends. Unfortunately, Subic Bay was closed, we just had Okinawa, Whisper Alley & the Banana Lady left.