america should not let this happen anymore

PistolPackingMomma said:

I don't think anyone made the argument that weed is addictive. If you were referring to my post, I was generalizing the field, because a crack dealer's life should not be less sacred than a pot dealer. One is certainly more unsavory than the other, but I don't want the government having a points system deciding who deserves to live and who doesn't, based on emotion, prejudice, and perception of value.

Click to expand...

You dont think a harsher sentence should be imposed on people who sell crack, a drug that has ruined countless lives, compare to weed, that ruins countless bags of potato chips. Agree with the death part tho
your "sacred life" is ruined if you are put to death or caged like an animal for 55 years.

MyWifeSaidYes said:

I feel he should have gotten 0 time for the gun possession.

I feel he should have been summarily executed for dealing drugs.

55 years should be a good middle ground, in his opinion.

Click to expand...

So should many doctors too then.

Why would you punish someone for chemicals/plants they wish to consume?

First, I never said the government should have the power of capital punishment. I merely stated MY choice of punishment for dope dealers. Heck, let's let the JURY decide on the actual punishments given...without limiting their choices. I think people would start declining jury trials left and right!

Second, if an adult wants to suck on a muffler, go for it. Life ain't sacred. If anyone wonders, I'm a non-religious conservative. I support term-limits for our federal Congress. I'm against increasing taxes or expanding government handouts. I'm really, really against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. I am very much in support of drug testing for government programs and denying those who test positive (it's a choice, right?)

Third, if you could guarantee that the drugs a dealer sells are not used by children, I might be okay with a more lenient sentence.

Fourth, getting back onto a gun-related topic...THE DRUG DEALER SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED ZERO TIME DUE TO HIS GUN POSSESSION!! Even criminals should have access to guns. It is up to the rest of us to be armed in order to defend ourselves.

Yes, give the bad guys their guns back. "Shall not be infringed" does not specify good guys only.

All rights are subject to reasonable regulation? Where, in the Constitution, does it say that?

I can yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater if I want to. THEN, I have to pay my dues, right?

The drug dealer did not shoot anyone, therefore he should not be charged for anything gun related.

I am against any type of increased punishment for a crime with a "gun specification".

Do you consume alcoholic beverages? ^^^?

I ask because this is a far more dangerous and reckless activity for you and others around you then "sucking on a muffler" as you put it.

MattinWA said:

Do you consume alcoholic beverages? ^^^?

I ask because this is a far more dangerous and reckless activity for you and others around you then "sucking on a muffler" as you put it.

Click to expand...

No, I do not.

Mywife - why don't you go out and kill some drug dealers ?

MattinWA said:

You dont think a harsher sentence should be imposed on people who sell crack, a drug that has ruined countless lives, compare to weed, that ruins countless bags of potato chips. Agree with the death part tho
your "sacred life" is ruined if you are put to death or caged like an animal for 55 years.

Click to expand...

The severity of the offense should have an increased severity in punishment. Crack is worse than weed, absolutely. But people seek out their drug of choice, and should not be absolved of the role they play in substance abuse. Either way, I would not advocate for a dealer of either substance to have their life taken by an entity more destructive to people's lives than crack cocaine.

MyWifeSaidYes said:

First, I never said the government should have the power of capital punishment. I merely stated MY choice of punishment for dope dealers. Heck, let's let the JURY decide on the actual punishments given...without limiting their choices. I think people would start declining jury trials left and right!

Click to expand...

True, you didn't not advocate for capital punishment. But, we were discussing his sentencing in a court of law, which leads one to believe your rather vague post about his sentencing, followed what sort of punishment he should and should not receive, at the same hands of the law. If this isn't what you meant, I apologize for misconstruing the limited information available.

Second, if an adult wants to suck on a muffler, go for it. Life ain't sacred. If anyone wonders, I'm a non-religious conservative. I support term-limits for our federal Congress. I'm against increasing taxes or expanding government handouts. I'm really, really against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. I am very much in support of drug testing for government programs and denying those who test positive (it's a choice, right?)

Click to expand...

I don't mean life is sacred in a religious sense. I mean it is sacred in that we have no right to take someone else's life unless in defense.

Your positions on the other topics mentioned above are superfluous to this conversation, as they have no bearing on the topic at hand, though offer some insight into your frame of mind.

Third, if you could guarantee that the drugs a dealer sells are not used by children, I might be okay with a more lenient sentence.

Click to expand...

If only life had any such guarantees. At all. I suppose that leaves us with the choice, would we rather live in a free world, with dangers unmasked, or live in a secure one, where we tell ourselves dangers don't exist?

Fourth, getting back onto a gun-related topic...THE DRUG DEALER SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED ZERO TIME DUE TO HIS GUN POSSESSION!! Even criminals should have access to guns. It is up to the rest of us to be armed in order to defend ourselves.

Yes, give the bad guys their guns back. "Shall not be infringed" does not specify good guys only.

All rights are subject to reasonable regulation? Where, in the Constitution, does it say that?

I can yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater if I want to. THEN, I have to pay my dues, right?

The drug dealer did not shoot anyone, therefore he should not be charged for anything gun related.

I am against any type of increased punishment for a crime with a "gun specification".

Click to expand...

You speak about rights infringement, and I call you a hypocrite for demanding this man be allowed his 2A rights, and still personally think his life should be forfeit for a victimless crime you don't agree with.

Nothing hypocritical.

I said, "I feel he should have been summarily executed for dealing drugs."

I stand by that.

I did not mean to imply that the government should execute him.

Would I actually execute this person myself? No, because that would be murder and murder is illegal.



And, while it certainly should be someone's choice to ingest whatever substance they choose, to think that substance abuse is a victimless crime shows a lack of awareness of the subject.

MyWifeSaidYes said:

Nothing hypocritical.

I said, "I feel he should have been summarily executed for dealing drugs."

I stand by that.

I did not mean to imply that the government should execute him.

Would I actually execute this person myself? No, because that would be murder and murder is illegal.



And, while it certainly should be someone's choice to ingest whatever substance they choose, to think that substance abuse is a victimless crime shows a lack of awareness of the subject.

Click to expand...

So you think he should be executed but not by the government but then by whom ? You say it would be murder if you did it but since you don't want the government to do it then who could kill the drug dealer and have it not be murder ?

Me thinks you are just a fool.

Well,,,

Too bad,, all here seem to be derailed...

The point of the OP,,,
Is,,,, that the Government, when finding a chargeable drug offence, no matter how minor it my be...
Will add a charge of "GUNS USED IN DRUG DEALING",,,
just because they are able to find a legal gun in the proximity of the "drug"..

Its all about control,,,, drug control,, gun control,, control of as many people as possible..

Three Felonies a Day,, for everybody!!

This whole ordeal is a joke. He is a simple musician enjoying life, and is not selling krokadil to kids. Imagine how bland music would be the past 50 years if it lacked social drugs. No simple stoner should be thrown in jail. I'm fed up with the government taking every single liberty we have and charging people with ludicrous sentences.

MyWifeSaidYes said:

Nothing hypocritical.

I said, "I feel he should have been summarily executed for dealing drugs."

I stand by that.

I did not mean to imply that the government should execute him.

Would I actually execute this person myself? No, because that would be murder and murder is illegal.



And, while it certainly should be someone's choice to ingest whatever substance they choose, to think that substance abuse is a victimless crime shows a lack of awareness of the subject.

Click to expand...

No, your stance is not hypocritical at all. :eyeroll:

As to the substance abuse/victimless crime comment; I did not infer all substance abuse was victimless; merely that in this case there was no victim, other than offending the State.

MyWifeSaidYes said:

First, I never said the government should have the power of capital punishment. I merely stated MY choice of punishment for dope dealers. Heck, let's let the JURY decide on the actual punishments given...without limiting their choices. I think people would start declining jury trials left and right!

Second, if an adult wants to suck on a muffler, go for it. Life ain't sacred. If anyone wonders, I'm a non-religious conservative. I support term-limits for our federal Congress. I'm against increasing taxes or expanding government handouts. I'm really, really against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. I am very much in support of drug testing for government programs and denying those who test positive (it's a choice, right?)

Third, if you could guarantee that the drugs a dealer sells are not used by children, I might be okay with a more lenient sentence.

Fourth, getting back onto a gun-related topic...THE DRUG DEALER SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED ZERO TIME DUE TO HIS GUN POSSESSION!! Even criminals should have access to guns. It is up to the rest of us to be armed in order to defend ourselves.

Yes, give the bad guys their guns back. "Shall not be infringed" does not specify good guys only.

All rights are subject to reasonable regulation? Where, in the Constitution, does it say that?

I can yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater if I want to. THEN, I have to pay my dues, right?

The drug dealer did not shoot anyone, therefore he should not be charged for anything gun related.

I am against any type of increased punishment for a crime with a "gun specification".

Click to expand...

While I agree with some of this... i disagree whole heartedly with bolded.

Let me try and explain my opinion and reasons.

I honestly think there is a disconnect with the view on drug dealers. Without answering.... How many of you know crack dealers? Heroin dealers? Probably few, most likely none. My point is that you envision them as just being average joes who go to work everyday and get busted for something dumb. They are not. Crack/Heroin is sinonomus with guns. Why? NOT because they believe in the Natural Rights of man. It's because they SHOOT PEOPLE. Maybe you can construe the "self protection" idea. Sure, they need self protection because they deal drugs in other guys areas and the OTHER bad guys have guns and won't think twice about killing them. They are animals. Period.

Who gets killed from these guns? Plenty of innocent people, look at Detroit and every other URBAN city where DRUGS are. There's alot of GUN violence.

Finally, I am very biased on this subject because of my occupation. When I go into their house because they are bashing their wife around, I have to worry if they have a gun. Not because GUNS are scary, but because I know these guys are animals and have no respect for human life. I've had to fi bullet wounds and stab wounds, been to the scene where the dude is flopping on the ground until he dies because he was just shot in the chest. These scenes of violence have made me very jaded against criminals and drug dealers. In order to have the right to life, you should respect it.

Primus said:

While I agree with some of this... i disagree whole heartedly with bolded.

Let me try and explain my opinion and reasons.

I honestly think there is a disconnect with the view on drug dealers. Without answering.... How many of you know crack dealers? Heroin dealers? Probably few, most likely none. My point is that you envision them as just being average joes who go to work everyday and get busted for something dumb. They are not. Crack/Heroin is sinonomus with guns. Why? NOT because they believe in the Natural Rights of man. It's because they SHOOT PEOPLE. Maybe you can construe the "self protection" idea. Sure, they need self protection because they deal drugs in other guys areas and the OTHER bad guys have guns and won't think twice about killing them. They are animals. Period.

Who gets killed from these guns? Plenty of innocent people, look at Detroit and every other URBAN city where DRUGS are. There's alot of GUN violence.

Finally, I am very biased on this subject because of my occupation. When I go into their house because they are bashing their wife around, I have to worry if they have a gun. Not because GUNS are scary, but because I know these guys are animals and have no respect for human life. I've had to fi bullet wounds and stab wounds, been to the scene where the dude is flopping on the ground until he dies because he was just shot in the chest. These scenes of violence have made me very jaded against criminals and drug dealers. In order to have the right to life, you should respect it.

Click to expand...

Great, thanks for the straw man.

The reason that there is so-much violence is because the drugs are illegal and the violence that is perpetrated is due to the fact that it's the only form of justice that they have.

If the drugs were not illegal then there would not be nearly as much violence around the dealers.

Besides I am sure that you don't believe that all drug dealers and drugs pushers should be disarmed, do you?

Freedom1Man said:

Great, thanks for the straw man.

The reason that there is so-much violence is because the drugs are illegal and the violence that is perpetrated is due to the fact that it's the only form of justice that they have.

If the drugs were not illegal then there would not be nearly as much violence around the dealers.

Besides I am sure that you don't believe that all drug dealers and drugs pushers should be disarmed, do you?

Click to expand...

I certainly do. You missed my point, whether do to willful ignorance or just a mistake.

When they (drug dealers, gang members, "criminals") obtain firearms it's not for DEFENSE. It's for OFFENSE. For example, there is currently a fued going on my city between two smaller factions of larger gangs. It has led to multiple shootings (over 12) and a few injured. This has even led to a shooting 1 block away (approx.) from our COURT HOUSE.

Now guess what the fued is over? Girls? Illegal Drugs?.... Facebook my friend. Words exchanged over Facebook. So yes, these guys that think it's ok to make 15 year old kids carry their guns, then take said guns and shoot other guys over words on facebook, SHOULDN'T get guns. Again, we agree that these Natural/ Con. rights are for men, not cows, not sheep, not dogs. So the humans who act like animals should not get those rights.

So even if you did make crack legal (not a good idea), it wouldn't fix all or even half of the violence. Making a drug legal doesn't make people civil.

Primus said:

I certainly do. You missed my point, whether do to willful ignorance or just a mistake.

When they (drug dealers, gang members, "criminals") obtain firearms it's not for DEFENSE. It's for OFFENSE. For example, there is currently a fued going on my city between two smaller factions of larger gangs. It has led to multiple shootings (over 12) and a few injured. This has even led to a shooting 1 block away (approx.) from our COURT HOUSE.

Now guess what the fued is over? Girls? Illegal Drugs?.... Facebook my friend. Words exchanged over Facebook. So yes, these guys that think it's ok to make 15 year old kids carry their guns, then take said guns and shoot other guys over words on facebook, SHOULDN'T get guns. Again, we agree that these Natural/ Con. rights are for men, not cows, not sheep, not dogs. So the humans who act like animals should not get those rights.

So even if you did make crack legal (not a good idea), it wouldn't fix all or even half of the violence. Making a drug legal doesn't make people civil.

Click to expand...

A pharmacist is a drug dealer and a doctor is a drug pusher.

I was calling on you to do some critical thinking and, you failed.

Freedom1Man said:

A pharmacist is a drug dealer and a doctor is a drug pusher.

I was calling on you to do some critical thinking and, you failed.

Click to expand...

Is yet another thread going to get muddled? Do you care to respond to anything I said?

It sounds like you read it decided you couldnt intelligently refute anything I said, so just jumped on a lame joke you may or may not have been trying to make.

My premise still stands for anyone who would like to civily discuss the original topic of the thread.

Primus said:

While I agree with some of this... i disagree whole heartedly with bolded.

Let me try and explain my opinion and reasons.

<snip>

Click to expand...

Amen and +1.

Freedom1Man said:

Great, thanks for the straw man.

The reason that there is so-much violence is because the drugs are illegal and the violence that is perpetrated is due to the fact that it's the only form of justice that they have.

If the drugs were not illegal then there would not be nearly as much violence around the dealers.

Besides I am sure that you don't believe that all drug dealers and drugs pushers should be disarmed, do you?

Click to expand...

Uh, drug dealers perpetrate violence.

Primus said:

I certainly do. You missed my point, whether do to willful ignorance or just a mistake.

When they (drug dealers, gang members, "criminals") obtain firearms it's not for DEFENSE. It's for OFFENSE. For example, there is currently a fued going on my city between two smaller factions of larger gangs. It has led to multiple shootings (over 12) and a few injured. This has even led to a shooting 1 block away (approx.) from our COURT HOUSE.

<snip>

Click to expand...

+1 and well deserved. Your premise is sound, however, drug dealers acquire guns for both offense and defense. LACs, I hope acquire guns only for defense. Excluding obvious hunting arms.

OC for ME said:

Amen and +1.

Uh, drug dealers perpetrate violence.

+1 and well deserved. Your premise is sound, however, drug dealers acquire guns for both offense and defense. LACs, I hope acquire guns only for defense. Excluding obvious hunting arms.

Click to expand...

I agree, both offense and defense. I was only harping on the offense to prove the point that it harms people. Again, they use them for defense against other NON LAC guys trying to harm them. So if NONE of them had guns, then they wouldn't need the guns for defense... But that's the battle, how to keep guns from them. I certainly don't have the answer.

On a ironic note, I just saw the HEROIN ADDICTION Banner at the top of this webpage. It was an ad for a treatment center.