guns aren't the issue drugs are

Having the right to do with oneself as one will is the primary civil liberty, via both drugs and guns, I see having already been grotesquely infringed. When people abuse those liberties: i.e., when they endanger the rights of others by, say, being hammered and driving a car or operating machinery, or when they use their guns irresponsibly (and it would be necessary to fine tune the provisions in which this is the case) then, yes, by all means, I believe they have abdicated those rights. I believe we had a discussion in another post about Dorner, in L.A. I don't think what he did was right, and he definitely needed to be put down, but I think less Dorners, and less school shootings, and less of all this nonsensical violence, would occur here if people had more personal freedom. I'll explain more below.

Likewise, I am against laws that require mandatory arrest, regardless of officer's discretion or evidence (or lack thereof) at the scene, as in the case of the current domestic violence laws. There has been a witch hunt (or should I say warlock hunt?) going on since the VAWA was put in place, and the media and the politicians are willfully ignoring that aspect of its repercussions in order to pander to the female voter/reader base, or so it seems to me. I unfortunately have too much bitter experience with gender bias in the legal system to ignore it anymore.

There are other points I could probably wrangle over, even with myself, but these are the most ridiculous abuses of power on the part of our government in this day and age. Policing peoples' vices is just counterproductive to the ability of the citizenship, each as an individual, to develop their own wills. People have to be allowed to sink or swim in or against their own impulses. This is what determines the difference between strong and weak citizens. I would prefer a strong citizenship, not a weak one.

So I see civil liberty as individual liberty. It seems obvious to me that when a person violates another person's individual liberty, they should be considered to have abdicated their own, but people often confuse me as saying: everyone should do whatever they like; but, no, everyone should be free to do what they will with themselves.

This is so important that I can't stress it enough. Self-discipline is a result of personal experience, and making ulterior consequences for people in the event of their own nonsensical treatment of themselves only takes them from their own prison and puts them in one of the state's devise, and then gives them an almost autonomic, or subconscious, idea that they are not responsible or accountable for their own actions, which is just stupid.

 

Most gun killings are gang killings. Gangs sell drugs. Legalize drugs, get rid of the reason for gangs to have turf wars.

 

OSIRIS-

You are making a lot of sense. I don't think natural drugs will ever be made legal there is just too much money in keeping them illegal.

 

I think that The Administration is working on a Fast & Furious program to address the issue of firearms with the Mexican cartels.

 

Drug prohibition has etched violence in our culture for 80 years, disdain for rule of law, it has corrupted law enforcement agencies and created massive fed agencies who operate outside of the law on our tax money. It's created industrial complexes and allowed big business and industry to monopolize our daily lives to the point that when all this trickles down it has left an apathetic, alienated, and lost population in it's wake.

This issue is very complex. ANYONE who thinks there is a solution as simple as banning 'assault weapons' is a simple-minded, short-sighted moron.

And it's funny how nobody mentions even examining the fact that all of these mass shooters showed signs of emotional problems and were force fed mind altering pills which have been scientifically shown to produce grandiose and suicidal ideation.

 

I don't think all of them were on psych meds. Some of them, certainly, but whether or not the "grandiose and suicidal ideation" is due to the meds alone, the original condition for which they were medicated alone, or the unfortunate combination of the two, is undeterminable.

I am no fan of many of those medications as I have lived with or interacted with people on them, and have not seen in a single case anything but a temporary suppression of the original issue, and then later a violent explosion of the original issue, and then, the doctor says "Oh, well, it's time to change the medication," which, to me, seems a euphemism for "This shit doesn't work."

I agree with you, though, that this factor should not be overlooked.

 

Gangsters aren't solely drug dealers; they'd look for something else to make money through, like pimping or extortion. So, if we did legalise drugs, they'd still be killing each other over which neighbourhoods they can mug people in, instead of which corners they can sell dope on. And I'd rather be sold drugs than be mugged, bro.

And I really feel the whole gun killings/gang killings relationship is exaggerated... Sure, there's definitely a link between the two, but if there were no gangs, what's happed at all these schools would've happened anyway. Now, if there were no guns...

 

...?