“War…on Drugs”. Heehee. Sounds like a dangerous game involving stoned and heavily-armed teenagers.

But seriously – I see the inconsistency. It doesn’t surprise me, though. The NRA’s just found a catchy slogan.
I guess some supporters of legal guns might argue drug users would not be able to restrain themselves during the times when using their stock is illegal. In what cases would using be legal?
I think the “People kill people” argument is pointless anyway. You’re right in stating how people oversimplify those issues. It would work for unwanted pregnancies, too:
“Abortions don’t end pregnancies. People end pregnancies.”

Inconsistent thinking is about the only consistent thing we humans do.

I like the idea of shooting the postman in self defence, “It was all that junk mail your honour, that’s what made me do it.”
Also, it’s undeniably inconsistent, but no great surprise there.

Conservatives with inconsistent views? Call the newspapers!

There is a consistency in the way the two issues are resolved:
You don’t get to use any drugs to have fun.
I don’t need you infringing on my rights to a gun.

It’s a matter of a conservative viewpoint that they can dictate what other people are permitted to enjoy, but no one can dictate to them.

I may be oversimplifying things, but the way I see it:

1. Drugs kill the taker, not anyone else. If a drug user makes the decision to take drugs, he has my blessing. If he kills himself with drugs, so be it. Darwinism reigns.

2. Guns kill others, not the gun-user. The person who was shot had no choice in the matter.

“I loved when Bush came out and said, ‘We are losing the war against drugs.’
You know what that implies? There’s a war being fought, and the people on drugs are winning it.”
― Bill Hicks

I alwaysthought this quote was quite succinct.

I was with you until the statement “Perhaps conservatives and liberals could make a deal.” Ha!

You can’t use the fear mongering with drugs that you can use for guns. You can’t claim that people will break into your house and only your drugs will save you.

Personally, I think the guns and intruders thing is more than a bit overplayed. Where the heck do these people live? I know of few places outside of the worst projects where people are just breaking into houses and raping people all over the place. Usually they wait until no one is home.

@keobooks And that’s why you need to install landmines in your home.

The war on drugs was not started with the intention of eradicating the use of drugs.
It has, however, been spectacularly successful at incarcerating Americans, especially black ones.

@bookish1 – another success of the so called ‘drug war’ has been the enormous amount of federal funding that has gone to different police forces around the country, ranging from the DEA all the way down to the local police department.

One of the reasons why the “war on drugs” will never end is because that would cause the income stream to dry up.

@elbanditoroso : Yes, it’s good business indeed…

The war on drugs has terrible consequences for people in many different places in the world. Many cities, if not countries, in Latin America are dealing with violence because of the war on drugs. I personally believe that the war on drugs does more harm than it does good.

I also think that the legal status of guns in the US is insane.

@mattbrowne I’ve recognized the foolishness of prohibition (in all of its various forms, from drugs and guns to gambling, prostitution and “risky behavior” in all forms) for decades. Not quite a half-century yet, but close to it.

This is the essence of the libertarian position that we do not in general support laws against “victimless crimes”.

No deals. Guns and drugs should both be freely available. Also whores and bookies, but… baby steps.

One notable difference is that the Constitution never mentions drugs, so it’s far harder to make an anti-gun argument that won’t possibly be overturned by the Supreme Court.

Note that our drug laws actually have their roots in anti-Chinese racism rather than “the good of society”...

@jerv: Which drug prohibitions were based in anti-Chinese racism? My understanding was that the prohibition of cannabis, at least, was based in part in anti-Mexican and anti-black racism.

@bookish1 Opium, back in the mid-1800s. You may well be right about how it expanded to Mary Jane though.

@jerv: Thank you. I’ve learned about the political deployment of opium in French and British colonies, but I hadn’t heard about the American case! I’ll have to look into that.

It’s quite simple really. Follow the money.

In this case, we liberals are just as inconsistent. Just turn it the other way around.

Though I personally would favor legalization of light drugs and the continued legal support of “light” weapons.

Because drugs are against the conservative christian moral code, and guns are part of our national heritage and widely acceptable.

Guns do not contradict the God, country, family credo, they enhance our ability to defend ourselves, our family and our country if necessary.

“Guns do not contradict the God” -Thou shall not kill

“they enhance our ability to defend ourselves, our family and our country if necessary.” And yet are often times used more for harm than defense. The whole well maintained militia argument is BS as well. Ya you have your guns to defend yourself but let me know how well that LMG works out when the tank rolls down your street or the drone flies by over head.

@uberbatman Talk about BS.

If you want to debate that in more depth, feel free to PM me, and I’m happy to do so. I don’t want to disrespect other people’s Q’s with personal differences of opinion.

”...when the tank rolls down your street or the drone flies by…”

Ok now I want a tank and a drone too.

@mattbrowne, I would think a closer comparison would be someone who claims they believe in the right of a woman to choice what to do to her body regarding purposely aborting a embryo, yet some of those same people want to restrict what that some person can do with their body in regards to sex, clothing, recreation, drugs, food et al.

Is that inconsistent thinking?

I don’t really get the comparison of drugs and guns. I don’t have a problem with you frying your brain on drugs as long as you do me and others no harm. The problem comes when others have to support your addiction because you can’t work or you steal to support your habit. I don’t see where that compares to someone having a gun or enjoying legal target practice, hunting or just owning something that doesn’t do you harm.

It’s kind of inconsistent to claim that gun safety laws can’t possibly work because criminals will just ignore the laws; then turn right around and insist drugs must be outlawed because obviously only laws will stop criminals from distributing and using drugs.

The problem is the core of the right-wing conservative movement in America is made up of authoritarian followers, and authoritarian followers have highly compartmentalized minds. They are not capable or recognizing logical inconsistencies because when they are challenged, they pull out one belief at a time from its compartment, examine it to see if it agrees with their ideology, and then put it back away.

So when challenged about logical inconsistency, they pull out belief #1, check against ideology, and if it passes muster, put it away. They then pull out belief #2 and put it to the same test. It makes no difference to them if belief #1 and belief #2 directly contradict one another. So long as both beliefs mesh with their ideology, both will pass muster and they will happily go on believing them.

What gun safety laws are you referring to that you say conservatives are opposed to, @ETpro?

@bkcunningham Universal background checks, putting teeth in the laws against straw sales, limiting the size of clips. They have even made it illegal for the CDC to collect statistics on gun safety in order to try to intelligently guide public policy making.

What is a universal background check?

@bkcunningham What is deliberately playing dumb when I know you’re not? What is Google if you really don’t know what universal background checks means in relation to gun sales?

I’m not playing dumb. (I suppose I really am dumb about what that term means.) I could Google it, but I thought we were having a conversation. It looked like you were typing more of a chat. Sorry. I’ll Google it. And you wonder why conservatives and liberals can’t talk. LOL

@bkcunningham I just assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that as often as I’ve seen you in the midst of threads about gun legislation, you’d know what “universal background checks” were all about. It means that no gun sale would be allowed without first running a background check on the purchaser. It takes about 5 minutes to run the check. In general, the idea is to prevent felons, people convicted of spousal abuse, those on the terror watch list, and those diagnosed as insane and at risk of acting out violently from being able to buy a gun. All others can buy as many and as often as they want. It’s kind of like not issuing driver’s licenses to people who have had a series of DUIs.

When I saw the phrase in your response, it didn’t register in my mind that you meant the phrase I refer to as a background check, @ETpro. I don’t generally hear or say, “universal background check.” I thought you were talking about some type of background check that was worldwide, like the terror watch list. My bad.

What would you like to see added to the Brady Act or the background checks that are now required?

@bkcunningham The Brady Act has long since died. I’d like to see background checks apply to all sales, not just ones in gun stores and in gun shows in certain states where state laws require them. Rather than risk derailing @mattbrowne‘s thread, can we take this over to a thread where it’s on topic if you want to delve into it and discuss it in more depth?

Yes, you are right about the derailing. I am sorry, @mattbrowne.

Pretty much all who use illicit drugs become addicts whether they realize it or not. Not every single gun or gun owner kills anyone. Best reason I can come up with.

I don’t support the war on drugs and I don’t support gun control, I don’t even support the war on terror. They are all wasting huge amounts of time, money, and resources.

@ETpro “those diagnosed as insane”

Mental health records are confidential and do not show up in a background check. Besides, no one is “diagnosed” with insanity. It’s not a medical term, it’s a legal term.

Thanks for all your answers. Sorry, for my late reply.

@bkcunningham – You wrote that you don’t really get the comparison of drugs and guns. My point was this: When you have both have drugs and guns at home and don’t misuse them, there’s no harm. I think conservatives don’t like the idea of drugs, because there’s the temptation to use them irresponsibly. However, when people have severe conflicts and there’s a gun in the house, some are tempted to use them (in the heat of the moment). So it’s better not to have a gun around.

@mattbrowne I’ll have to disagree. I’ve been married for ten + years to the same ornery man who has made me madder than anyone in my life, a few times.

Not once have I went to the gun room, unlocked the door, went to the gun cabinet and pulled out a gun, loaded it, walked back to my husband and shot him.

I’m not saying it doesn’t happen ever, but aberrations occur in all species, like the multiple women who murder their children. You can’t brand all gun owners with the ‘crazy’ and ‘irresponsible’ stamp, it’s just not true. Personally, we both agree that background checks and limited rounds are fine with us.

As far as drugs, the Bible specifically states that our bodies are temples so drugs are obviously not good for us, but you should see everyone fire up the cigarettes when church is out. HA!

I have heard a few users of mj use the “God gave herb for man” quote, too.

1 Corinthians 6:19–20 ESV / 43 helpful votes
Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.

@KNOWITALL – I don’t brand all gun owners as ‘crazy’ and ‘irresponsible’. But for those who are, it’s better not to have a gun nearby. For them anger management is a challenge. I rather have them curse than shoot.

I’m totally against drugs, except for a bottle of beer or a glass of wine every now and then. But I’m also against labeling people as criminals who possess drugs, while it’s perfectly okay to own assault rifles and hundreds of rounds of ammunition.

How else do you expect them to protect their drugs?

@mattbrowne “But I’m also against labeling people as criminals who possess drugs, while it’s perfectly okay to own assault rifles and hundreds of rounds of ammunition”

Do you feel that its ok to label us who do choose to keep PDW’s and the ammunition for them as criminals?

I label neither group as criminals. I want conservatives to change the laws about drugs.

A drug user who never harms other people is not a criminal.

A gun owner who never harms other people is not a criminal.

@mattbrowne Then I’m with you, and agree.

You want conservative to change the laws about drugs. Do you also want the laws about weapons to move in the same directions? Looser, less restrictions? That, to me, is the gist of your OP. Would it not be hypocritical of you want tighter laws for guns but looser laws for drugs?

I find it hard to believe that if anyone could legally imbibe on any drug they wanted, as much as they wanted, that the rate of addiction would not go up among them. How could it not? More people trying drugs, and being only human they will become addicts like all the unfortunate souls before them. So then what do we do with these people? Just accept that getting hooked on drugs is a right of passage for society. And we put them all through rehab after they break down and admit they have a problem? Just to undo all the self inflicted damage and millions spent only to make people normal? Which would be really no improvement over what they had before they were addicted. So, all that treasure spent but no advancement of themselves other than to be drug free? To make drugs legal Would not erase the stigma that dopers rightfully deserve. Would we then force employers to hire these addicts since they were not breaking the law? Or we could get a govt paid druggie back to work system costing more millions. These jobs that drug addicts could do and still be addicts would be what? Seems like the same revolving door we have now. Too many people never get off the drugs that trapped them in the first place. It’s going to be an uphill battle to convince the taxpayers, the ones who are the productive people, to have the patience with these non productive people who seem to want to be that way. They may not really want to be always on drugs but to the one’s who are to be expected to foot the bill, it sure looks like they do. Try to convince people that there will be a few exceptions to the fact that drug use creates addicts. Who wants to take the chance on these people that even if a relatively small number of new drug users will be able to resist the temptation to be habitual users they will just be functional addicts at best?

The drug problem and the crime problem could/should be considered to be interconnected. We don’t have a gun problem in that same sense. A fact that we will never see reported on the more progressive news outlets is, that violent crime has plummeted here since the mid 1990’s. It’s all there in the official Dept of Justice study. Also in the PEW study. Gun ownership has risen dramatically here at the same time. Also concurrently with this is the fact that more and more states have dropped restrictions on firearms. Lawful gun owners have much more freedom, AWB expired in 2004 is a big one. Studies conducted to see if the AWB had any impact during its implementation have shown the changes in crimes committed with these evil guns were so minute they were not enough to measure. Why is it they won’t just come out and report this on prime time? Even if some try, it will be mentioned in passing like a page three story. This is a good reason to channel hop when it comes to where we get our news, not just stay where we like the news best.

The gun control people can argue that more guns does not equal less crime. Fine. But the one thing they will never argue successfully is that all their gun regulations were responsible for it.

Actually, @woodcutter, the percentage of people owning guns here has dropped rather dramatically. The number of guns owned is what has risen steeply. Which means fewer and fewer households choose to arm themselves, but those who do think they need the equivalent of a well-stocked National Guard arsenal.

I actually agree that legalizing all drugs would result in more people getting themselves addicted. Statistics from the prohibition era show that liver disease dropped while the law was in effect, and rose back to previous levels after its repeal. It’s the other effects of prohibition I dislike. And in any case, the argument was advanced not to defend drug addiction but to show inconsistent thinking. That was the OP’s topic.

“but those who do think they need the equivalent of a well-stocked National Guard arsenal”

I’m gonna go out on a limb and dare say you have never seen a real arsenal. You seem to have that word deeply etched into your lexicon. Is it? Deeply etched there? How can anyone really say how many new people have gotten onto gun ownership? By your own statement made some time past , there are 40% of gun sales unaccounted for. Can you say for certain that there are not 40% more gun owners every year exponentially? I can’t. The OP seemed to me,at least, to want to link the two situations in that do the same to one as the other. What I merely wanted to illustrate was drug addiction will effect almost everyone who does it. And a gun owner will not automatically kill just because they get their hands on one. The ratio of bad gun owners to good gun owners is slim. It isn’t the gun owning public’s fault the msm won’t explain this better. You still conveniently ignored my point that gun crime has fallen to its lowest levels since the 90’s despite the loosening of gun laws in many states. If you are going to comment on something I put out there please would you at least acknowledge all of it?

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/

@bkcunningham – When it comes to drugs, I have an unusual proposal, which will probably never end up as a law: For each substance there’s a maximum value for blood content, when drug users are outside of their home, or if they have children at home, it would also be illegal to exceed this value, say for example 0.15% alcohol. We need to address the problematic part of drug use, not drugs at such. The same applies to weapons. Assault rifles are problematic. Hand grenades are problematic and so forth. People with a history of violence shouldn’t be allowed to own any weapon etc.

@ETpro I submit that those of us who own guns will not need to ‘stockpile’ if our right to bear arms is continually threatened.

Currently, laws in the US allow drug use with a prescription, @mattbrowne. Really, that is what it comes down to. If you have a prescription, you can still be cited for driving under the influence, child endangerment or any other number of laws that would apply if you are “over the limit,” so to speak.

Also, in the US there are a myriad of laws restricting gun ownership and possession. For instance the Lautenberg Amendment restricts gun ownership for anyone who has a conviction of domestic violence or is under the restrictions of a restraining order. The federal law makes it illegal to sell, trade or give a firearm or ammunition to such a person.

@bkcunningham – So why was President Obama asking for tougher gun control laws?

What is a hand grenade? And has anyone ever seen a real one outside military service? “Assault rifles are problematic. Hand grenades are problematic and so forth” Nobody has hand grenades. They are not needed because we can just look online and get instructions on how to build our own homemade bombs, which, there also are laws against. I think that those who live in other countries assume that, Yanks have the most gun rights also must be able to aquire grenades, and fully automatic machine guns. This is false. The gun laws here are plenty trust me, but more than a few are not enforced. It is true that a collector can have as many guns as they can afford as long as they have no criminal record. Just because a person has many, or just one gun doesn’t mean they are going to use it/ them. Truth is the majority of a gun’s existence is spent put away out of sight- not used. But a druggie with an amount of smack sitting on his coffee table is going to be using that stuff pretty much right away. Guaranteed. People don’t “collect” drugs. They are consumed directly, soon after they are in possession. Drugs cause a bigger social problem because it is an almost guarantee once a person gets started they will abuse them to the point of abusing themselves, which sets into motion a downward spiral to their lives and that becomes a drain on society. It then is not confined to them. They are the cause of a much bigger ring of problems and dysfunction. What to do with all these now unproductive people? Because they usually find themselves unemployed with a bad drug habit and no way to fund it. Does that mean they simply quit doing them and go back and ask for their old job back? Nope. They steal other people’s property and turn that into the money they need and they will often become vicious in their quest to get their craving satisfied. Now just imagine millions more people doing this because they weren’t intimidated by the illegality of drugs. Sounds terrible to me.

Why is Obama asking for more gun laws? He has been on record saying that NO ONE should be able to have guns. No one. So it should come as no surprise he would want to do anything and everything to make this more difficult, if not, impossible. If only he could be king

@woodcutter When did Obama say “No one should be able to have guns?” Citation, please.

As to straw purchases (people who are legally able to purchase buying guns for, and selling them to those who can’t legally have a gun) there is a Federal law against it, but it is almost impossible to prosecute under that law. It says that the prosecutor must prove that the straw purchaser knew that the other individual was not legally able to possess a gun AND that they knew the exact details of the crime or crimes that person planned to commit with the gun they purchased for them. So it can’t even come into play till after a crime has been committed with a gun obtained through a straw purchase. And even then, the prosecutor has to convince a jury that they are capable of reading minds and can see inside the head of the person originally making the buy. The result is most prosecutions are under state laws and in many cases result in a slap-on-the-wrist misdemeanor. One regulation I’d like to see corrected is this. A real and enforceable straw purchase law at the federal level wouldn’t limit anyone legally able to own a gun from buying one, but would allow police to lock up criminals and those that assist them in some cases before a violent crime ever happens.

Here’s a few things that Obama has said.

http://2012.presidential-candidates.org/Obama/Gun-Control.php

Here’s one of the scary ones:
“As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can’t constrain the exercise of that right.”
April 16, 2008, Democratic Primary Debate, National Constitution Center in Philadelphia

@ETpro Here is the quote, now I know since we are familiar with each other’s stands on things that you will dismiss this source out of hand because that’s what you do, but here it is any way. There would be other sources with these pre presidential quotes. I find it hard to believe an animal will change its stripes. http://www.gunblast.com/ObamaQuotes.htm

Now, with statements like that…paired with some very prominent and career left wing politicians, how do you expect any of the informed gun owning public to trust anything Obama says whenever he trots out any BS line that he supports the right to keep and bear arms? We are just supposed to trust him on this….riiiiiiight.

@woodcutter “I find it hard to believe that if anyone could legally imbibe on any drug they wanted, as much as they wanted, that the rate of addiction would not go up among them. How could it not?”

Let me just direct your attention over to Portugal

Nearly every adult has tried drugs at some point in their life. Only 8.3% of the US population is addicted.

23% of the population are Roman Catholic….where’s the real threat..hmm…?~

I don’t know why, @mattbrowne.

Here is the federal law I was referring to in the previous post. This is just one federal law regarding firearms. There are also numerous state laws regarding firearms.

@uberbatman You do realize that Portugal and the US are different right? They have a system where the govt finds money for social programs to fund them. It might be just a tiny part of the problem why Europe has that sinking look because they spend too much. Allowing a problem to flourish, get bigger and then coming up with a finite source of funds to fit a problem that was created. It’s like pumping up the game reserves so the hunters have more to harvest. Where if you didn’t have hunting the game levels wouldn’t have needed to be as large? It might not be the best analogy but the only one I can come up. with now. I think comparing a capitalist country with a socialist one is apples and oranges when it comes to social engineering for better or worse. It will be hard to convince the tax paying public (capitalism/for profit) to allow people to be the best dopers they can be, only to turn around and rescue them after they did what was predicted after they had free reign to do the drugs. Its like creating a recipe for potential disaster, knowing we will be expected to rescue someone from themselves because of recreational drug use. Maybe Portugal forces employers to keep drug users on their payrolls. Because here in the states ,companies want nothing to do with them. If people want to ruin their health on party favors, I’m all for it. It’s their lives to ruin. It’s the economic stress it puts on the rest of us. Lost productivity is a big problem.

Who here really likes being around people who are stoned? Pretty much only stoners will like that, or find it remotely acceptable. Spend the time to educate people about the trap of drug addiction.

@woodcutter Tracing that link back, it was first noted on the notoriously inaccurate far right-wing rag, World Net Daily, affectionately known as World Nut Daily. It’s a bit disturbing how, after having the validity of that source debunked, you continue to rely on propaganda it spreads. Even WND notes that the claim that Obama said that is hearsay. A fellow University of Chicago professor claims he said it in a conversation they had. This professor is a guns for everyone advocate who makes considerable money winding up people just like you so you’ll all buy his books claiming the black helicopters are about to swarm out of the UN at any moment to round up all your guns. It’s just possible he would have a financial motivation to make up such a claim in order to sell more books. The fact is that neither Professor Obama, Senator Obama, or President Obama has ever said any such thing publicly, and he has never acted as if he believes it.

I’d rather be around stoned people than be around drunk people. There are a lot of mean drunks, but I’ve never met a mean stoner, or even a violent stoner. I’ve known more drug addicts than I care to admit but I can only think of one who had potential to turn violent I suppose, and I really only saw him being rude. Drug addicts tend to do stupid shit, not violent shit and as far as all of the stupid shit I’ve seen them do goes, none of it ever involved a gun. However i have seen plenty of drunks using guns unfortunately.

@cheebdragon Yeah, me, too.

Fact is, people who use mj are working all across the country every day, when they go home they may take a drag or two instead of drinking a twelve pack. It’s not such a big deal in my personal opinion. Not to mention the medical aspects that is really the deciding factor for me.

Well IF we are just talking about MJ then that is a different animal entirely. I tolerate those users. I don’t consider pot a real drug any more than I would a maple tree. Those who have had to be around heroin and crack users and meth heads will say something else. Even if they are people you know personally, you will have to admit they crank on your nerves to no end. And that is just the people you know. Imagine being with unfamiliar people. I saw a bumper sticker some time back that read “tweakers suck”. Truer words never printed.

@ETpro I told you that You would find something to dispute with any link I found, didn’t I? Lets be clear buddy, if you want to get all the angles in order to look at a topic you are going to have to look into sources you may not find in your “favorites list”. This is for anything you want to really know about. Stuff like this you will never see in the leftist rags you subscribe to in a biblical sense. Do you really think Huffpost would even send a contributor to dig any of this up? If you want to be content being led around by the sources that print your views only and are comfortable with that then be my guest. You don’t like to hurt.

I wasn’t referring to stoners as drug addicts, they are not. The only drug I have ever disliked someone for using was crack, because he tried to break into my home. I’ve known A LOT of tweakers and heroin junkies, tweakers are mostly just funny, they are pure entertainment. That meth commercial from the late 90’s was so rediculously inaccurate. Every heroin junky I’ve ever met has been really nice, mellow and outgoing. I’m sure there are drug addicts of all kinds in the world, but in my experience they are not bad people, the few people that I have been affraid of were either completely sober or drunk, both of which are legal.

σиℓу υѕєяѕ ℓσѕє ∂яυgѕ.

@woodcutter That wasn’t an ad hominem. I told you the problem with the source. It’s hearsay. The person is claims said it has a financial incentive to say such. And the person it claims actually did say this has never made such a pronouncement publically, or taken any action that would indicate he even believes the claim. On the Internet, you can find something that says what the hell ever you want to believe. If it’s not already out there, you can just create a blog and post it. If you still cling to the link being definitive proof, then confirmation bias is your only proof.

@ETpro Did you even read the whole list as well as the sources they list after each one? Obama is anti 2A…period. There is no other way for anyone to read it. None of his “common sense wish lists” will do anything to protect children. All it does is transforms millions of otherwise law abiding American into criminals. Apparently even they truly believe there is nothing than can be done with the obvious bad players (a big part of his constituency), so they will try to go after the low hanging fruit ( the people who are not inclined to commit murder). His minions get to sit back and say they “did something”.Big deal, they showed us, huh.

@woodcutter You’re full of it. If you don’t believe me, I’ll write up an entry on my blog claiming some PhD liberal told me so, and according to your own standards of “evidence” that hearsay claim will “prove” it.

@ETpro That statement, as well as many others like it almost never see the light of day with the msm, agree? So now we can examine why this occurs. Msm is left leaning. Want to know how I made that assesment? Because they sometimes go out of their way to deny it. Most others do not even deny it. So whenever a news company feels they need to say they are fair and balanced you know they are in damage control from the get go. That should be a given. This goes for them all. Just because you don’t personally believe this doesn’t make it less true. You are not the end all in what is the truth because you just don’t know. You will faithfully label any information that didn’t come from a liberal source as lies, you can’t help but do that. It has become your fail safe. Listen, gun owners don’t need to be swayed by someone drumming up BS lies to convince them to stay faithful. You are confusing us with those in your camp. Shit like that is wasted on us. John Lott PhD, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lott is not some right wing crack pot. Instead a noted academic. You know this more than most as you understand him as the proverbial thorn in the side of all gun control arguments. So it’s no wonder right out of the box you will attempt to diminish his ideas out of hand. You antis despise this man. Which means in common speak….you believe he’s right. This discussion is not just between you and me who know better, but there are others watching this too and for you to poo poo an authority on this subject in front of the rest is a deceitful attempt to to keep them from looking behind the curtain…where the facts are.

I don’t doubt that he said it, but he would never say it to the public or the press, even if most Americans support some form of gun control, they would never support a president who intends to ban guns completely. It would be political suicide…..

Considering recent events, there is a good chance Obama wouldn’t even know if he made the statement until its all over the evening news.

@woodcutter Why does it occur? Because despite all its current failings, the main stream media maintains a bit of journalistic integrity. They don’t run stories based only on hearsay where the person “breaking” the story and the “informed source” who supposedly said it to begin with both have clear bias and major financial incentives to just make things up. They corroborate stories, and when they can’t, they don’t run with them. They print retractions when they determine they got something wrong. They are embarrassed by that. None of that applies to sources like The Drudge Report and World Net Daily.

18 out of the 20 top news sources show liberal bias…

Correct me if im wrong but didnt Obama vote on a bill to ban guns in Chicago?

“Obama was being misleading when he denied that his handwriting had been on a document endorsing a state ban on the sale and possession of handguns in Illinois. Obama responded, “No, my writing wasn’t on that particular questionnaire. As I said, I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns.”
Actually, Obama’s writing was on the 1996 document, which was filed when Obama was running for the Illinois state Senate. A Chicago nonprofit, Independent Voters of Illinois, had this question, and Obama took hard line:
35. Do you support state legislation to:
a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.
b. ban assault weapons? Yes.
c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes.
Obama’s campaign said, “Sen. Obama didn’t fill out these state Senate questionnaires—a staffer did—and there are several answers that didn’t reflect his views then or now. He may have jotted some notes on the front page of the questionnaire, but some answers didn’t reflect his views.”—Source

@woodcutter, I have wanted to say that many, many times to @ETpro on numerous discussions but couldn’t put the words together. You did and it is perfectly stated. I don’t say it often, but I wish I could give you more than one Great Answer for that response. I think you are very smart @ETpro, but you are instantly dismissive of anything that isn’t one of your liberal sources or in your Progressive box of ideas.

The idea that there will be no more people incarcerated if drugs are legalized is wishful thinking. Any decriminalization will be a compromise filled with other bills for more improved and invasive drug testing for public safety. Being stoned and driving is the same as drunk driving. It’s already against the law to use a legal cellphone and drive. So it won’t be a stretch to really zero in on impaired drivers in a history making event such as legalized drugs. The addicts are still going to be in a hurt for cash. One thing that happens when loss of employment hits. It would take a complete socialist take over of the federal and state govts to agree to give unemployable addicts a stipend for being that way. So these broke- assed people will obtain their cash in other more efficient ways that require no paperwork or wait times. They will take it from people, maybe even you. You will most likely disagree with their plan and resist and things will escalate quickly. Who here would not press charges against someone who robs and beats them? So, off to the cage they go, not because they are drug users no. But because of a peripheral reason based on the use of addicting drugs. Different reason- same cost.

@cheebdragon Well it has been two general elections and a midterm since the freshman state rep Obama was working in Illinois. Memories are short here so it becomes very easy to overlook his ideas expressed before he was elected president. Those ideas and writings are still there, even though some would want those to fade away but the “bullet is out of the barrel” to coin a phrase and they have to stand. A thinking person would have to be willingly stupid to disregard “old comments” as in the past. They count as long as he has any ability or authority to enact change. A republican president is never allowed to rewrite history and for good reason so why should any other kind of president? The left can conveniently dismiss any of those ideas that foil their talking points, that’s what works for them. But they shouldn’t be surprised when others pick up on it, and then throw out the fake outrage in response.

There is definitely a lot of this going on…

@cheebdragon The left wants to dismiss any notion that there could be a time when a person is going to have to make that awful decision to take a life to save themselves. We all agree it’s bad. They want to claim it probably is never going to happen.—so why all the worry? We’re just being paranoid. It’s not a white / black thing. An attacker could be any kind of person but I think they subconsciously turn it into the fallacy that white people want to kill blacks. That chemical brain juice tricks them into thinking way too emotionally. And for the record blacks also own guns thanks to the NRA. Old laws that prevented blacks from having guns are forgotten down in the dustbin of history. I really wish people would take the time to study it..history that is.

Piers Morgan- Why is this man still in my country?

I couldn’t even watch the entire video, I was too annoyed 5 min in with the way they were asking questions, making statements and completely ignoring anything Lott tried to say, they were yelling their views at him and dismissing the opposing views. I kept thinking “why in the fuck is this on CNN?”, they should at least try to be a little unbiased and for fucks sake be professional about it, he could have covered his ears and said “I can’t hear you! Na an na na na” and it would have been exactly the same as his horrid behavior.

@cheebdragon Piers Morgan was on record tooting his own horn something like he is CNN’s top show. Really Mr. Morgan? CNN ratings are near if not at the bottom of the rest so he’s the best at the worst news channel and he thinks he’s all that? He was the head of a failed British tabloid and embroiled in a phone hacking investigation. To which he has claimed he knew nothing about. I don’t know about you but I think I have picked up a pattern coming from liberal leaning personalities who like to claim ignorance of the obvious. It’s bad either way. They were aware and lied or, they were not lying and were in a position to be aware. Still bad. Morgan is a complete bully when he gets a hair across his ass and that’s why I can’t count CNN as a serious news company because they have sunk down to tabloid sensationalism and shock TV. Why on Earth would any guest appear with him knowing the way he is? I hope his work visa lapses. Poor guy, even his fellow countrymen don’t want him back.