Tell me again when Amsterdam and whatever country it is in was a world leader in anything besides shoes, cuckoo clocks and legal drugs?

Amsterdam is half the size of Cincinnati and they had 17 murders in all of 2006. Just something to chew on...

I think we'll see another movement like when James Brady and President Reagan got shot. Unfortunately, it won't solve anything.

Amsterdam is half the size of Cincinnati and they had 17 murders in all of 2006. Just something to chew on...

That is because they are too worried about where to get their Ding Dongs for the munchies than a drive to do anything.

 

I do concede the point that crime associated with drugs is a huge problem in this country. But onward to the point.....

 

:confused: I don't follow.

They have a minimal place in the world economy. They have much less issues and concerns to deal with. There is 300 million people in this country. How many in their country? More issues and more diverse problems in this country.

 

The drive in their country, I would guess, is not as high IN GENERAL in this country, because they have a different culture. Ours is success-driven. Want to be best at this and at that and so on and so on.

 

I am not sure that you can expect to take a mindset of a country that has minimal in common with this country and expect it to have the same results.

 

Not meaning to come across like I am downgrading their country but simply it is apples and oranges to compare Holland and the USA.

I think we'll see another movement like when James Brady and President Reagan got shot. Unfortunately, it won't solve anything.

I wondered and thought of the same name when I began this thread.

They have a minimal place in the world economy. They have much less issues and concerns to deal with. There is 300 million people in this country. How many in their country? More issues and more diverse problems in this country.

 

The drive in their country, I would guess, is not as high IN GENERAL in this country, because they have a different culture. Ours is success-driven. Want to be best at this and at that and so on and so on.

 

I am not sure that you can expect to take a mindset of a country that has minimal in common with this country and expect it to have the same results.

 

Not meaning to come across like I am downgrading their country but simply it is apples and oranges to compare Holland and the USA.

 

What does their stance in the world economy have to do with gun control? And I suppose marijuana too but we are in the wrong thread.

 

The Netherlands has had a much bigger economic problem from their prodigious welfare system than they have from drugs, as evidenced by their economic growth after they began to reform it.

What does their stance in the world economy have to do with gun control? And I suppose marijuana too but we are in the wrong thread.

 

The Netherlands has had a much bigger economic problem from their prodigious welfare system than they have from drugs, as evidenced by their economic growth after they began to reform it.

I wonder if those on drugs are contributing to their welfare problem.

 

In my experiences, the "problems" in the drug trade have been those who don't want to go out and work for a living. They see a cheap quick buch without having to put in a 8 to 10 hour day, go to school and prepare themselves for a living.

 

If you legalize drugs, regulate it and sell it legally, they will find some other way to make a living illegally that will not require them to put in a hard day's work.

 

So, while we discuss drugs and how it will change the crime rate, I don't think the drugs is the main issue in the crime in a Cincinnati for instance. I think it is a culture of either believing they have no other choice in making a buck than to sell drugs, or simply don't want to.

 

They don't want to go to school, do the work and go to a post secondary school to earn a trade and make a living. They want it NOW. No, they believe they DESERVE IT NOW. And they don't care to break the law for what they believe they deserve. Don't see that mindset changing just because drugs are allowed.

 

Another question, if you regulate it, tax it, etc, etc, why won't you still have pushers selling it to AVOID the taxes on it and all of the regulations you have placed on it?

Well, as expected, this didn't take long. :mad:

Good post and I agree. Why does anyone have the need to own guns that should be for military use only. Do you need a weapon with a big 50 shot banana clip to go squirrel hunting?

My forefathers, despite popular rhetoric, were not concerned with me having the ability to shoot a squirrell. They were concerned with me having the ability to be a reasonably armed citizen. By being reasonably armed, I mean armed well enough to be able to overthrow oppressive government if the need ever arose. Don't get me wrong, I am not in that boat by any means. The point is however that amendment two has nothing to do with hunting, and everything to do with limiting the government's ability to opress its citizens.

Good post and I agree. Why does anyone have the need to own guns that should be for military use only. Do you need a weapon with a big 50 shot banana clip to go squirrel hunting?

I sometimes wonder why some people I dont agree with should have the right to speak freely as well, then I remember. It is because it is provided for by the Bill of Rights. Quite simply, it isn't my descision to decide what a person need a weapon for. BTW, there are no new clips produced larger than ten rounds. That was part of Brady.

I sometimes wonder why some people I dont agree with should have the right to speak freely as well, then I remember. It is because it is provided for by the Bill of Rights. Quite simply, it isn't my descision to decide what a person need a weapon for. BTW, there are no new clips produced larger than ten rounds. That was part of Brady.

So you are for me having the right to own a RPG?

So you are for me having the right to own a RPG?

I could have assumed the next retort coach. We already have control in place. If we follwed our forefather's intensions, we would be able to own an RPG. Instead, we deam that some weapons shouldn't be owned by the public for domestic security. This goes against the intention of the second amendment. However, an RPG is not a gun. It is an explosives projectile weapon. Do I think the public should be able to own all types of firearms, yes. I think the public should be able to own all types of firearms as much as you have the right to free speech, a trial by jury, and no illegal search and seisure.

Since KY. and other states have allowed people to have permits to carry concealed weapons no wild west type shootings have occurred. So the argument should be that if someone with a weapon could have taken out the killer.

 

Do not try to argue back that they would be shootouts all over the place. As I said nothing like this has happened as the people who get these permits are checked out.

I could have assumed the next retort coach. We already have control in place. If we follwed our forefather's intensions, we would be able to own an RPG. Instead, we deam that some weapons shouldn't be owned by the public for domestic security. This goes against the intention of the second amendment. However, an RPG is not a gun. It is an explosives projectile weapon. Do I think the public should be able to own all types of firearms, yes. I think the public should be able to own all types of firearms as much as you have the right to free speech, a trial by jury, and no illegal search and seisure.

Your first post said it was not in your power to determine what WEAPON a person owns. That is the reason I went to the RPG route.

 

Not sure that goes against the 2nd amendment.

 

I don't have the right to free speech. I have a conditional right to free speech. I can't yell certain things in certain places. Don Imus didn't have free speech.

Your first post said it was not in your power to determine what WEAPON a person owns. That is the reason I went to the RPG route.

 

Not sure that goes against the 2nd amendment.

 

I don't have the right to free speech. I have a conditional right to free speech. I can't yell certain things in certain places. Don Imus didn't have free speech.

Yes he did. He excercized that right. He reaped the reprocusions. However, those reprocusions had nothing to do with the federal government. As far as going against the second amendment, a malitia is by its very definition a compatable military force. Therefore, the 2nd Amendment seems extremely clear. It is those that don't agree with the amendment that try to cloud the water.

Don Imus does have the right to say what he said . The Supreme Court has ruled so. What was argued is that he said it in a public forum and was comdemned for it by 2 hypocrits that have appointed theirselves the PC speech police.

 

I personally believe Imus was wrong in what he said, just as I am against the rappers who use the same language. I also think the Supreme Court was wrong in saying this type of speech is protected. The Founding Fathers wanted political speech protected, not vuglar language. You can get your message across without a bunch of 4 lettered words.