Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Hudspeth County Texas Sheriff," If I call, My ARMED Citizens will come running"

At least the farmer had a LA 700!!

Ah, so you're using the incredibly asinine argumentative tactic of "you can't go there unless you've been there".

I have no idea how many issues are going to come up here that I have not yet commented on but according to you, if I do, that opinion is diminished because of it.

How ignorant.

AND WITH THAT THE DOUCHE GOES ON IGNORE

Where did the ignore button go?

Go to their profile and hit "Ignore this user."

It'll work too.

Hey, I'm usually a pretty compassionate kinda' guy, towards the "Afflicted", but you've pretty much blown any chance for that, JasonB. You're certainly sick, but the bad news is that WTF is WRONG with you does not look curable,......you want to REMAIN the way you are.

That would lead me to ask (AGAIN),....WHY do you come to sites like this,....?

Listen up, you diseased, deranged, ridiculous in most aspects (particularly the VISUAL), and repellent in all others, corksocker,........

I've LIVED on this Border, and been writing about it for a LONG time,......right here, too.

I would imagine that your own predeliction and TALENT for getting THROWN offa' websites leaves you in the dark as to how that would work.

Again,....ask around, Blarto.

GTC

[/quote] I've been hit by a drunk too. Since the complaint revolves around crime that comes from trafficking drugs I specifically asked if there was any recent shootouts where alcohol distributors were trying to secure sales areas which seems to be a resounding "no".

I would ask for a link to info showing there were people who were prevented from ever drinking alcohol during the short time period of prohibition, but after your claiming 18 is no longer the voting age or that somehow that amendment had anything to do with alcohol distribution or use I'll just assume it was trying to inflate your argument.

And I would be in favor of banning alcohol again just to see the effects it would have on the nation's hypocrites. It would be bloody (as it was before) but overall it would be worth it. [/quote]



You know, I wasn't being rude. I didn't get into the arguments or name-calling. I also didn't say "hit" by a drunk; I said "KILLED BY" as in never to be seen again, 50% of my sisters and 25% of my siblings now GONE because of DRUNKS. There doesn't have to be shootouts for people to die.

Do you think it really matters to my family whether it was an alcohol-trafficker and a bullet, or a drunk with a Chevy Van, or do you understand that either way, innocent people DIED? This was my ONLY point. Either way, if drugs are legalized, there will STILL be countless dead, annually. No guns required.

Inflate my argument? I'm guessing everyone except you understood that I messed up and referenced the 26th amendment while meaning the 18th. My mistake for assuming you read content.

I never said people were prevented... I said, "Laws just keep HONEST men honest, they don't make honest men." During prohibition there were people who, because it was illegal, never tried alcohol. Once again, try naming anyone today who hasn't tried alcohol. Drugs, eventually, will be the same way. BOY THIS SOUNDS FAMILIAR.

I DON'T want it to be any easier for my son to get drugs than it already is. Period. No underlying, ulterior, or otherwise unstated intention. No mud-flinging necessary. I'm not nor have I ever been part of the "powers-that-be", I just don't want illegal drugs legalized. Making them legal just takes one charge away from prosecutors when they kill someone while under the influence.

If that were fully and truly logical and realistic, it'd apply equally to rape, murder, robbery, burglary, etc.

No, I am using the tactic of seeing people that went and still go apeshit over the 1994 (D) semi-auto ban, but are accepting if not supportive of the (R) based semi-auto bans of 1989 and 2005 that are still on the books.
There are plenty that have done the same with illegal immigrants and the bail outs. Fine with the situation when republicans were in, but all of a sudden they are foaming at the mouth mad about it when a (D) gets in and they go on and on complaining about gun laws, illegals, and bail outs and how we need to get (R)'s back in to make everything right.
In other words, hypocrites. I have no problem with someone who has just seen the light, hypocrites on the other hand I have no use for.

Might work if drug merchants had unwilling victims who had an incentive to bring them to justice. They don't, though: all they have is willing customers who object to them being put out of business.

The harsher you make the law, the more expensive you make the drugs, which brings more money into the drug business, which has at least two big effects.

First, it makes the drug business more profitable and therefore more attractive and therefore expands it.

Second, it provides for the corruption of ever more cops, judges, and legislators, therefore making the harsher laws ever more ineffectual.

Imagine you've caught a drug dealer in the act, and the law says you should shoot him in the head. If you let him go and pretend not to have seen anything, you get half a million dollars. If you shoot him in the head, you get nothing and his buddies torture and kill your family in front of you. What do you do?

People who favor the War On (some) Drugs are either getting kickbacks from it or don't understand the way the world works.

I don't follow ya, Ken.
Violent crimes cannot be legalized. Even if the system stopped punishing people for it, your list would still be acts of outright lawlessness. It's not the same concerning consumption of drugs (to include alcohol) because no natural law has been broken, only a legality. The act of consuming a drug (to include alcohol) commits no crime against anyone and breaks no natural law. The unfortunate truth that while under the influence a user might injure someone is a given, but laws in place to curb possible future occurrences cannot be condoned, let alone held in the same regard as laws against willfully committed violent crimes(such as your list).

Plus, legalizing rape, murder, robbery etc, would have no effect on the profits to be gained by such an act where legalizing drugs, as Hawkeye says, would pull the rug out, effectively reducing the profits enough to end the violence, turf wars, etc. Murder, robbery, bribery, etc, will still have their rewards whether or not they are legal acts.

The difference, Dr. Howell, is that rape, murder, robbery, and burglary are all mala in se, or bad of themselves, because they have victims whose rights are violated. Even if there were no State penalties at all for such crimes (especially if there were no State penalties), their victims and their victims' advocates would object to them enough to make their consequences sufficiently uninspiring that they wouldn't be a significant problem. The vast majority of the population is strenuously opposed to such crimes, because they understand that if they become commonplace, their own security will be severely compromised.

But drug use and trafficking are merely mala prohibita, or bad because they're prohibited; they have no victims and they violate no one's rights. There is no vast majority of the population opposed enough to them to take time and money out of their schedules and budget to do something about them. As a matter of fact, if it weren't for a coercive State extorting resources to support the War On (some) Drugs, I seriously doubt that a double-digit percentage of the folks here at the Campfire would voluntarily donate enough money to support even one dynamic entry per year in each of their communities.

I don't give a rip whether my neighbor is smoking pot--or even mainlining heroin--in his own bedroom. And neither do most other people, at least not to the extent where they would be willing to do anything more substantial than holler slogans about it.

That's the difference.

Perhaps instead of comparing the War On (some) Drugs to rape and murder, you could compare it to laws against owning scary guns or excessively large toilet tanks. You'd probably find more congruence there.

I still think that drugs should be legalized only if drug dealing is also made an affirmative defense against assault. I.e., show that the assault victim was known by the assailant to be a drug dealer and the assailant gets off Scot-free.

Perhaps the method of assault could be regulated, such as being limited in the size of the stick used.

Well, if nothing else, Capitalist, we got you savvied on the "Oathkeepers" phenomena,.......I'm tickled that you're impressed.

This degeneration of theme into this endless loop "Republican v Dem." and "Legalization of Drugs" has been gone over ad infinitum. Any deterministic solution (drugs) will continue to elude alla' those participating, per usual.

The mouthy, arrogant fat circus clown on the tiny motor scooter ?........I dunno' what to say about him, other than he looks like the "New Slinky", and will learn a lot about stairs here.

Maybe we can now look at steering this conversation towards it's original thrust,...that of The American County Sheriff's clear cut authority to mobilize Constitutional Militia, and Posses.
I'd REALLY like to hear how that particular concept floats in other parts of this GREAT Country of ours.

Best regards to most,

GTC

I always considered it not only a duty but a necessary one. It should be so commonplace everyone expects it without a second thought.

The cartels themselves have gone that one better; actually cutting off the heads of rival smugglers. Turns out that ain't stopped people though.

THIRTY BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR, or maybe eighty million dollsrs a day, take yer pick, those being drug revenue estimates pouring into Mexico.

If ya don't think that sort of money can corrupt Americans, look at the long litany of Texas Law Enforcement convicted for complicity, including right here in San Antonio, selling themselves for far less than the big numbers cited.

Does corruption go up to the state and federal level, I dunno, but that sort of money could make a lot of compaign contributions. Look at the interests that employ illegals for example and their effect on politics, over revenues far lower than what drugs generate.

Birdwatcher
(somewhere back East)

By now you have so many in congress that are users and have been elected on drug money that it won't be long before it is legalized.

Not at all. Very few would support the legalization of those things. They are what we call malum in se crimes, i.e., generally understood to be wrong in themselves. Laws against the voluntary ingestion of substances are what we call malum prohibitum crimes, i.e., "wrong" only because prohibited by law. There are enough people who wish to engage in the consumption of illegal drugs to support a substantial black market in them, the high street prices (and thus high profit potential) of which provide the engine for organized crime.

BINGO!! It's one or the other.

How in the hell did this come to "Legalize Drugs"? Pathetic!