The Firing Line Forums
Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > S.W.A.T. Magazine

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old August 16, 2006, 10:36 AM   #101
Rich Lucibella
Staff
 
Join Date: October 6, 1998
Location: South Florida
Posts: 10,165
Jeff-
I think what many missed in the Point-Counterpoint Column was that you and Claire really aren't on opposite sides of the fence.....if anything, your position was even more "libertarian" (small "l") than hers.

Rich
__________________
S.W.A.T. Magazine
Weapons, Training and Tactics for the Real World
Join us at TFL or at AR15.com or on Facebook
Rich Lucibella is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 16, 2006, 01:49 PM   #102
Jeff Randall
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 9, 2004
Location: Gallant, AL
Posts: 185
Rich,

I can agree with that. My whole point is if we're going to debate freedoms, Individual Rights and the role of government, then let it be about true rights and freedoms the way they were originally intended. Let's go all the way back to the founding of this country, the Constitution, the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers since that was the mindset of the founders at the time. The Rights of the Individual always come before the the self-ordained "rights" of any government and even before the betterment of the whole (altruism). The only "right" government has is to exist solely on behalf of the individual, not the other way around. When we start talking about legalizing one thing and "allowing" that legalization to be under the control of government, then we have once again ceded power to an entity that has no right to have such power. The same way they have no right to redistribute our wealth via taxation for welfare programs, drug rehabilitation programs, the war on drugs, regulation of "free" trade and commerce...the list goes on.
__________________
Jeff Randall Photography
Jeff Randall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 16, 2006, 07:08 PM   #103
Eghad
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 28, 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,231
I have no argument with a return to The Constitution and BOR as written. Taxation is just another way that the government has of subordinating the individual to the state so that the politicians can have a source of cash to pay for the goodies they want to hand out to stay in power. The IRS has the power to take away everything you have before you even get due process. Which is bassackwards from the way the system should work.
__________________
Have a nice day at the range

NRA Life Member
Eghad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 15, 2006, 02:50 PM   #104
KingofAttendance
Registration in progress
 
Join Date: September 4, 2006
Posts: 100
I'm for the legalization of marijuana, the effects aren't nearly as dangerous as the effects of alcohol. If there are 120 proof liquors out there that are constantly abused why haven't they been outlawed yet? A couple of shots are a lot worse than a couple of hits.
KingofAttendance is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 16, 2006, 10:28 PM   #105
9mmsnoopy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 14, 2004
Location: Thrillsville ,Tx
Posts: 903
Marijuana should be treated here like it is in the Netherlands, its not technically legal, but its tolerated, small amounts wont get you into trouble.

Keeping it out of kids hands? doesnt matter if its legal or illegal, kids that want, will get, just like with booze.

If an otherwise law abiding and hard working citizen wants to relax after work with a joint in the privacy of his own home, whats the big deal? Yes, there are plenty of pot smokers who work just as hard as the straight laced folks.

Sell it in the liquor stores and tax the hell out of it, just like booze and cigs, by doing so, you just put the street dealers out of business.

Coke,crack,meth and all the hard crap is the problem. how bout the death penalty for those dealers? that might put a dent in that also.
__________________
beretta cx4 storm .40 caliber
sig P290
Kahr PM9 Glock 26
Bushmaster AR15
9mmsnoopy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 17, 2006, 04:43 PM   #106
Heist
Junior member
 
Join Date: June 6, 2005
Location: ETN, Again
Posts: 760
Quote:
and tax the hell out of it
Why does everyone seem to come to this point? It'll just serve to maintain a lesser black market, such as the one that exists with cigs to NYS for example.
Heist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 17, 2006, 11:42 PM   #107
Crosshair
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 16, 2004
Location: Grand Forks, ND
Posts: 5,320
Yea, the "Tax the hell out of it" think is a BAD idea. Just look at NY, thriving black market because the government have made it profitable enough to smuggle cigs into the state. In NY it is hard to find legal cigs in some places. Just tax it like alcohol, 8% in my state a reasonable rate IMHO. A rate where the government can have some money to help those who ruin their lives, yet not create a serious black market
__________________
I don't carry a gun to go looking for trouble, I carry a gun in case trouble finds me.
Crosshair is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 18, 2006, 06:13 PM   #108
tyme
Staff
 
Join Date: October 13, 2001
Posts: 3,179
Yet more evidence that without adequate border control, the war on meth will go nowhere:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14817871/from/RS.3/
__________________
“The egg hatched...” “...the egg hatched... and a hundred baby spiders came out...” (blade runner)
“Who are you?” “A friend. I'm here to prevent you from making a mistake.” “You have no idea what I'm doing here, friend.” “In specific terms, no, but I swore an oath to protect the world...” (continuum)
“It's a goal you won't understand until later. Your job is to make sure he doesn't achieve the goal.” (bsg)
tyme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 19, 2006, 12:29 AM   #109
CobrayCommando
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 21, 2004
Posts: 1,631
Quote:
I'm for everything as long as it doesn't harm or cost me, or any other innocent people.
Things that you apparently are not "for":
- cars
- guns
- water (people drown in it... innocent people. You likely pay a water bill)

Quote:
Quote:
Sure, I like the cold beer, but I hardly ever drink to the point of intoxication or impairment. Like it's been noted before, with the illegal drugs, that's all you're doing.
That's right. Alcohol is good and doesn't have to be abused; other drugs are bad and are only abused.
Actually I must say that this is a valid argument for the most part. After all, when you do cocaine/meth/heroin, you aren't doing it to get a buzz. You're doing it to get f'ed up. Marijuana is different depending on quite a few factors, just like cigs and alch.

Quote:
Q: Why aren't they getting into gunfights with LEO's to smuggle tobacco and alcohol shipments?
A: Because tobacco and alcohol are legal.
See Crosshair and Heists posts LOL!

Still, agreed.
CobrayCommando is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 19, 2006, 12:29 PM   #110
Jeff Randall
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 9, 2004
Location: Gallant, AL
Posts: 185
Wow, you missed the point. I'm for everything labeled "dangerous," "regulated," "illegal" or "light fuse and get away." What I'm totally against are the humans that use these things to harm, cost or injure others. I'm especially against those who use the the mere potential of something causing harm to increase my taxes, force me to provide welfare to others, or say I'm not responsible enough to own something because it has a "potential" of causing harm.

As far as drugs go, I say legalize every one of them when you find a way to keep it from costing me. Claire Wolfe makes good points but she doesn't follow her reasoning through to the end many times. Simple legalization is not the cure. A complete government "hands-off" policy on Individual Rights is the answer. It never ceases to amaze me at the folks who believe in the premise of "legalizing and TAXING drugs." They just don't get it. I believe a lot of "freedom fighters" want their way without the personal responsibility attached to it. Somehow blessing something as "legal" (that the government has no right to initially make illegal) makes everyone feel good, and wow, if you tax it then it's doing the world a favor. Just think of the money we have to uneducate our kids with or put more people on welfare or rehabilitate those idiots who don't understand personal responisibility. Yep, that "legalized" taxation thing is great and makes everything alright.

Did you ever wonder why we have a "legal" alcohol limit for driving? Why not just prosecute anyone who negligently kills someone due to drinking, doping, speeding or being a complete idiot and not paying attention to other people in the world? What crime has occurred if a drunk, doper, or insane idiot drives down the road and doesn't hurt anyone? You see, we prosecute people on potential of causing harm, not from actually causing harm. And we're making big bucks from it that we can pour into politicians pockets or give away to others who have no personal responsibility.

The way I see it is my rights end where yours begin, but not before. So, the short answer is I'm for everything until some human uses it to cost or injure someone else. At that stage we should provide swift justice against the offending party. Jury trial of course - using FIJA rules.

Jeff
__________________
Jeff Randall Photography
Jeff Randall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 19, 2006, 06:58 PM   #111
Heist
Junior member
 
Join Date: June 6, 2005
Location: ETN, Again
Posts: 760
I'm for ending the war on some drugs but I'm also for taking away anyone's license if they're caught driving drunk. Period.

There's a huuuuge gap between a guy on the nod from shooting up heroin on his couch at no risk to anyone else, and a drunken blonde ex-sorority sister soccermom driving down the highway with a cellphone glued to her ear in her retardedly huge SUV that will kill me on impact. One should not be persecuted based on 'risk to society'. The other SHOULD.

Seems to me that the people who have problems with DUI enforcement are always the ones who parrot out the old lines about "if they get home and no one was hurt- what was the crime?"

Trying to sneak driving drunk or impaired in any way along with genuinely victimless crimes is something only a maliciously ignorant scumbag would do.
Heist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 20, 2006, 06:36 AM   #112
invention_45
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 30, 2006
Location: Broward County
Posts: 972
Quote:
My beef with legalization is how do keep it out of the hands of kids? Kids are getting most drugs now and they are illegal. Legalizing drugs for adults will still leave a market to sell to kids whether its legal or not.
You gotta be kidding, right?

When I was a "kid", say 15-18, I was offered drugs of any kind available in those days on a daily basis. They were, if you recall, illegal at that point in time. It was easier to get drugs than candy, because the sellers came to YOU.

Today, with the larger variety of types of drug and the dismal failure of Prohibition II, and with kids still being too smart to swallow the hogwash that passes for "drug education", I suspect they are even easier to get.

Just like with cigarettes and beer, you might as well face it. You are NOT going to keep it out of the hands of kids, no matter what you do.

I personally know of two cases in which driver licensing policies have failed to keep 12- and 14-year-olds from "borrowing" their family's car and proceeding to immediately smash them up, one into a stop sign and power pole, and the other, INTENTIONALLY, into another vehicle.

You can personally tie a rope between you and your own kid if you have the time, but then there are all the other kids he'll be exposed to whose parents have jobs.

Legal or illegal, kids are going to get into it.

That's what makes the "for the children" argument such stale baloney.
invention_45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 21, 2006, 08:52 AM   #113
Jeff Randall
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 9, 2004
Location: Gallant, AL
Posts: 185
It's amazing to me how we pick and choose what victimless "crimes" we are willing to accept in society. I've never understood how the State can be an injured party if no Individual was harmed, but then again maybe my philosophy of logic and reason is skewed.
__________________
Jeff Randall Photography
Jeff Randall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 22, 2006, 01:25 PM   #114
Brian Ellis
Junior Member
 
Join Date: September 22, 2006
Location: England
Posts: 1
Drugs on prescription

As someone raised the possibility of controlling 'harder' drugs through prescription by a doctor or similar, they did actually try this in a small area of the UK for a while.

Going from memory of a pretty good TV documentary on the trial... Heroin addicts were offered free Diamorphine (ie medical grade heroin) from their local doctor plus support to stabilise their habit and, if they wanted, get off the drug completely. There was no pressure to quit though.

Police were initially VERY sceptical as you might imagine, but quickly saw the benefits. Crime rates for things such as burglary, theft etc nosedived, halved or better in most cases.

There were other benefits too. As you may know, the UK has 100% tax funded healthcare - allowing addicts to get high grade drugs from doctors rather than low grade street drugs dramatically reduced the number of overdoses and drug related illnesses such as blood poisoning. The high cost of treating these vs the trivial cost of Diamorphine actually resulted in less public money being spent on clearing up after drug addiction.

Even better, some of the addicts on the scheme were actually able to get their lives in order enough to get off unemployment benefit and into tax paying jobs.

I've tried to find the actual report on the appropriate govt website, but they only have research from the last couple of years on line, and this would have been around 2000 or so.

I also recall seeing something covering the fact that prohibition actually led to a switch from drinking beer to spirits, simply because it is more cost effective for a smugger to bring in spirits at 30 to 40 'drinks' per litre than it is beer at 3 'drinks' per litre. If I remember correctly thats how crack got going - how could a dealer make more profit per kilo?

Given the above, I would have to say that yes drugs (including alcohol and nicotine) do cause all sorts of problems. Criminalising them just makes those problems worse and adds organised crime etc to the mix as well.
Brian Ellis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 26, 2006, 11:56 AM   #115
Eghad
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 28, 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,231
Interesting reading.....

http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/Libr...ma/panama1.htm

Quote:
The Committee recommended "that no steps be taken by the Canal Zone authorities to prevent the sale or use of mariahuana, and that no special legislation be asked for."
__________________
Have a nice day at the range

NRA Life Member
Eghad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 6, 2007, 11:24 AM   #116
Spectre
Staff Alumnus
 
Join Date: October 23, 1998
Location: DC
Posts: 3,274
I'm sorry I'm late to the party.

Mr. Randall, the US Constitution restricted the most powerful weapon of the day- the ship of war- to Congressional control (article 1, section 10). If ships of war would be restricted to such control, it is only logical to assume that nuclear weapons would be, as well.

I am for freedom. I am willing to trade a little safety for freedom, as it were.

That said, the most common killer today is obesity-related disorders.

People can hurt themselves with anything. The government should only step in when others are hurt.

We will define drugs in this instance as substances which are consumed recreationally to cause a chemical reaction in the body. These include the most consumed beverage besides water in the world- coffee- as well as chocolate, cigarettes, alcohol, and even some vitamines.

It appears to be impossible for a human to consume enough marijuana to kill himself in the short term. This is not the case with alcohol.

I am close to several people in various stages of recovery from drug and alcohol abuse. They quickly tell me that alcohol is the big danger, more deadly than most hard drugs. (One of these people has a nursing degree, and used to work in a clinic that handled drug and alcohol-abusive patients.)

Perhaps something many are overlooking, is the financial incentive of alcohol companies. It's a profit proposition: let's say one could, at some future time, buy a pack of marijuana cigarettes for $10. One could buy a 750 ml bottle of decent rum or vodka for this price. One might use that amount of alcohol for 4 or 5 guest at a party or social gathering.

Or, one might share just one marijuana cigarette, making the marijuana considerably more attractive for those with little money. Big alcohol stands to lose on this- of course, many will probably use both, but I'm still certain that many in the alcohol lobby only see a threat.

If drugs were decriminalized, people could still be prosecuted for things like having drugs within reach of children, or using drugs with children around. There are myriad laws that would cover such things.

The GWOD has only been successful in expanding criminal activity and in being a cash cow for many law enforcement agencies. In its name, many of our freedoms are being lost or infringed upon. It has only hurt us.

I hate to see people hurting themselves with anything, but ultimately, the problem is in the personal choice of people involved. People don't screw themselves up because they're on drugs, they're abusing drugs because they're screwed up.

John
Spectre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 6, 2007, 01:35 PM   #117
EJJR
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 3, 2007
Posts: 153
"I hate to see people hurting themselves with anything, but ultimately, the problem is in the personal choice of people involved. People don't screw themselves up because they're on drugs, they're abusing drugs because they're screwed up."

+1

IMO, It's not what form of "drug" a person chooses, but why they choose it; just as it's not what action a person performs, but why they do it. It's all about intent and circumstances. IME, life is not black and white, its all shades of grey.

Anything can be abused or used excesively. IMO, excessive use of anything is potentially hazardous to our health. Take oxygen; we can't live without it, but too much will kill.
__________________
Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty. Thomas Jefferson

Want to learn how to shoot well? http://appleseedinfo.org/
EJJR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 13, 2007, 03:14 PM   #118
Jeff Randall
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 9, 2004
Location: Gallant, AL
Posts: 185
The point, that many seem to miss, is no matter what the substance is it only becomes *truly* criminal when it is used to harm an innocent being. Not merely because it has the "potential" to harm. Be it oxygen, water, cars, drugs, guns, Navy Batlleships, sex toys, or dynamite.

Then we add the fact that I have to stand in line and let the pharmacist "approve" of me if I want a box of Sudafed because my damn nose it stopped up, or sign a form if I buy a ton of Triple 13 Fertilizer to use on my farm, or pay a 200 dollar tax stamp, wait for approval, and then visit my sheriff to be fingerprinted simply because I would like to hush up my rifle so the neighbors won't bitch and take me to civil court when I shoot their dogs killing my calves on MY property.

By not allowing me to possess items freely (that have no way of hurting anyone without a criminal mind/hand manipulating them) then you are saying that I'm not to be trusted until I prove myself to someone who is "trusted." My God, I've never even had a speeding ticket and some of the politicians and LEos I have to "prove" myself to have a rap sheet. Go Figure.

Granting the "right to possess" certain things to a mere few that are assumed to be working for the safety and best interest of the whole is bull****. A fine example of this is the abuse of the Patriot Act by the Department of Justice.

I know it's the system and it's a system that I abide by, but my point is a criminal act requires a criminal hand. Prosecute, imprison and kill (if need be) the criminal once an injured party (person/body/human) exists.

The problem with our system is we want it both ways. Even though I'm for Individualism and don't believe in victimless crimes, I still say if we're going to fight or war then let's do it and go froward - balls to the wall. For example, we want to fight a war on drugs but instead of just saying all bets are off and we're going to fight it, we allow political correctness to creep in. We make things illegal at the public or politician's outcry then they're the first to scream "foul" when we dole out harsh punishment or suffer a little collateral damage. The illegal immigration issue is a fine example of this as well as the Iraq war.

We have tied the hands of our LEOs on the street through political correctness, we have attempted to tie the hands of the CIA and OGAs operating overseas fighting an enemy that is dead set on killing all of us with any means possible. We have "peace" groups screaming about human rights in Guantanamo. We have prosecuted soldiers fighting a war because they humiliated the enemy. I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with all of that but I do know the only way to "win" is to not suffer fools or worry about political correctness. Be the meanest, toughest, biggest, baddest, sonofabitch on the block, or don't fight at all. In the end, I'm for the United States of America - 110 percent. I could care less if we step on toes and violate human deceny overseas.On the flip side of that, I DO care if we violate the Rights of an American citizen, even if it's just a little bit.
__________________
Jeff Randall Photography
Jeff Randall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 15, 2007, 12:49 PM   #119
tyme
Staff
 
Join Date: October 13, 2001
Posts: 3,179
Quote:
The problem with our system is we want it both ways. Even though I'm for Individualism and don't believe in victimless crimes, I still say if we're going to fight or war then let's do it and go froward - balls to the wall. For example, we want to fight a war on drugs but instead of just saying all bets are off and we're going to fight it, we allow political correctness to creep in. We make things illegal at the public or politician's outcry then they're the first to scream "foul" when we dole out harsh punishment or suffer a little collateral damage.
I understand where you're coming from. When a war is already as difficult as the war on drugs is, it's a strategic mistake to compromise the war's effectiveness by splitting focus between the war and protecting individual rights.

I agree with your comment on harsh punishment. If we're really going to fight drugs, we can't whine if some octogenarian with cancer and a few marijuana plants gets locked up.

However, I disagree with the idea that fighting drugs through the legal and criminal justice systems is mandatory, and I think any reasoned examination of the "war" leads to the conclusions that the war is unconstitutional and carries enormous social costs of its own: death, injury, creation of "bad" neighborhoods, and property forfeiture involving individuals who are not involved with drugs.

Also, the legal status of various other drugs -- nicotine and alcohol and various OTC drugs -- compromises the moral foundation of the war on drugs to such an extent that drug warriors have no leg to stand on other than raw authority and some absurdly twisted concept of moral superiority.

If the war ends up costing either you or your family death, injury, or (confiscated) property -- despite your not being involved in drugs -- is that acceptable to you? Are you willing to pay that price? Or are you happy with the drug war only as long as other people are paying that price?
__________________
“The egg hatched...” “...the egg hatched... and a hundred baby spiders came out...” (blade runner)
“Who are you?” “A friend. I'm here to prevent you from making a mistake.” “You have no idea what I'm doing here, friend.” “In specific terms, no, but I swore an oath to protect the world...” (continuum)
“It's a goal you won't understand until later. Your job is to make sure he doesn't achieve the goal.” (bsg)
tyme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 15, 2007, 03:46 PM   #120
Jeff Randall
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 9, 2004
Location: Gallant, AL
Posts: 185
I never said I was "happy" with the drug war. As far as the collateral damage that has been caused by BOTH sides, it's pretty obvious that all of us are willing to accept it. They confiscate my property every day in the form of taxes - most people seem to forget that your money is YOUR property. As for the other side, I have been close and personal with the issues that come from drugs - it has changed lives close to me in more ways than I care to mention. So, we all suffer every day, although some damage is more extreme than others. It doesn't make either side right.
__________________
Jeff Randall Photography
Jeff Randall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 12, 2007, 09:01 AM   #121
billstclair
Member
 
Join Date: May 25, 2002
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 25
I have a hard time understanding people who believe in the right to keep and bear arms, but think that drugs should be banned. The Brady Bunch believe that guns are responsible for their abuse by criminals. We know better. Guns are inanimate tools that can be used for good or ill. Responsibility for their use or abuse lies with their users. We should know better about drugs. They are inanimate chemicals. Responsibility for their use or abuse lies with their users. Addiction is a choice. Yes, many people have a difficult time leaving an addiction, so it's often a hard choice, but it's still a choice, and the user, not the drug, is responsible for it. Prohibition only makes the drugs more expensive and ensures the participation of organized crime. It doesn't make the addict's choice any easier.

I'll end with my favorite quote about the war on some vegetables, from Vin Suprynowicz' book, Send in the Waco Killers, reviewed by Claire Wolfe:

Quote:
The very first chapter of the book of Genesis reports that God gave man every flower and seed-bearing herb and tree for his use. At the same time the Creator gave us the freedom to decide whether and how to use medicinal herbs (including those that can alter our consciousness or provide a religious experience). He also made us responsible to suffer the (natural) consequences if we make foolish decisions about the use of these plants. Any government with the arrogance to think it can take away both our freedom to make such decisions and our responsibility to live with the consequences -- answering for those consequences before that Higher Power, not their jumped-up tribunals -- is insufferable.

This does not mean that, "Marijuana should be available by prescription." It means that morphine sulfate should be available in five-pound bags at the supermarket for a couple of bucks, like sugar ... but probably in a different aisle, to avoid confusion.
__________________
Every man, woman, and responsible child has an unalienable individual, civil, Constitutional, and human right to obtain, own, and carry, openly or concealed, any weapon -- rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- any time, any place, without asking anyone's permission. -- L. Neil Smith
billstclair is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 12, 2007, 10:25 PM   #122
Jaycolo
Junior member
 
Join Date: March 26, 2007
Posts: 59
Good read most of our founding fathers grew hemp and some even smoke it most states now are going pro pot it does have medical use and the body has canboid (sp) reciptors implying were ment to use it I honestly think it not as bad as beer or any other thing out there I myself havent had a drink since I was 21 and I par take in the herb from time to time because it honestly helps me I have RA and the drugs they put me on ate my bones made me vomit and I wasnt really able to do anything because I could hardly move I smoke A bowl in the morning and at night before I go to bed with out any side effects.
Jaycolo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 12, 2007, 10:30 PM   #123
Jaycolo
Junior member
 
Join Date: March 26, 2007
Posts: 59
On a side note what about all the state that made med pot legal and the fed still arrest them. I always though that state rights over ruled fed because its up to the state to give the people what they want.
Jaycolo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 13, 2007, 09:45 PM   #124
bushidomosquito
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 14, 2007
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 434
Sounds like Bill is spot on, blame the criminals who misuse guns, blame the criminals who misuse drugs. Simple as that. Any support for the war on drugs is support of the idea that it's ok for irresponsible people to set the standard for the rest of us. If you are capable of possessing and using ANYTHING responsibly, then no one has the right to tell you otherwise. What happens when your car and drivers license are taken away because too many people are causing accidents?
__________________
"Jack Bauer sleeps with a pillow under his gun."

"Bush is listening, use big words."
bushidomosquito is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 13, 2007, 10:20 PM   #125
TexasSeaRay
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 19, 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 810
As a former federal narcotics agent, I can't believe what I'm reading from some TFL Staff members.

I would only ask how many doors to crack houses have you kicked in; how many meth labs have you raided; how many pot farms have you seized, and so on.

I've done all of the above and the was culmination of preceding investigations on, gasp, this so-called unconstitutional war on drugs. What's more, leading up to the point to where we raided the crack houses, meth labs, pot farms, et al, we saw misery in the Nth degree that was a result of illegal, illicit narcotics.

The complexity of ill effects outlawed narcotics has on our society is almost beyond comprehension. It is obviously beyond the comprehension of said staff members who believe the "war on drugs" is unconstitutional. Perhaps these Staff members have written recognized papers on the Constitution and how it applies to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in a republic? Maybe these Staff members have lectured at Quantico and Glynco regarding the unconstitutionality of the very job that thousands of agents are being trained and paid to do?

It is reading this kind of stuff that makes me and so many other LEOs and former LEOs wonder why the hell we ever bothered doing the job.

Maybe staff members and others believe that because they have guns and some degree of training, they are not at risk from the fallout of the REAL drug war? And that "real" drug war isn't the one cops fight against the drug industry--it's the war the drug cartels and dealers fight amongst themselves.

The fallacies of believing that "legalization" will cure the woes of illegal drugs are numerous. In my professional experience--as one of those unconstitutional warriors in an unconstitutional war"--those who favor and wail about legalization have rarely thought it out very far.

Everyone is entitled to opinions, but it certainly helps to base them upon well thought out fact, research and experience.

Damned glad I'm a civilian now. Real damned glad.

Jeff
__________________
If every single gun owner belonged to the NRA as well as their respective state rifle/gun association, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in today.

So to those of you who are members of neither, thanks for nothing.
TexasSeaRay is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:00 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Page generated in 0.21199 seconds with 7 queries