Fast and Furious...oh you mean the movie, right?

[Mauser KAR98K]

Not even mentioned.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanielparishflannery/2013/08/05/should-u-s-gun-manufacturers-be-held-responsible-for-the-ongoing-violence-in-mexico/#11d796


he U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives reported that between January 2007 and December 2011 68,000 guns from the U.S. were recovered in Mexico. One CNN report explained that “the staggering numbers of U.S. weapons that end up in Mexico show that something must be done to control arms smuggling.”

How many did they send over again?

Liberalism is a mental disorder.

[Moose-Knuckle]

“the staggering numbers of U.S. weapons that end up in Mexico show that something must be done to control arms smuggling.”

[cough] false flag [cough]

[Mauser KAR98K]

“the staggering numbers of U.S. weapons that end up in Mexico show that something must be done to control arms smuggling.”

How about Mexico seal their borders and wall it up because of Gringo?


[cough] false flag [cough]

Gee, Wally, what do you mean?

[thopkins22]

Mexico needs to legalize guns. The United States needs to legalize drugs.

Overnight the cartels would lose their income and the violence in Mexico would decrease dramatically. Freedom is the answer here.

Gun control in the US to eliminate violence in another damned country would work like the drug war in Mexico has prevented drugs from going to the US.

[trinydex]

Mexico needs to legalize guns. The United States needs to legalize drugs.

Overnight the cartels would lose their income and the violence in Mexico would decrease dramatically. Freedom is the answer here.

Gun control in the US to eliminate violence in another damned country would work like the drug war in Mexico has prevented drugs from going to the US.

legalize all drugs? including methamphetamine and cocaine? because crack and meth are victimless substances? no love is lost on addicts that decide to ruin their own lives. unfortunately many of those addicts have children.

also there's no real war on guns in mexico is there? they're defacto legal in the sense that there's no true systematic enforcement of the laws.

[Eurodriver]

legalize all drugs? including methamphetamine and cocaine? because crack and meth are victimless substances? no love is lost on addicts that decide to ruin their own lives. unfortunately many of those addicts have children.

Legalize all guns? Including machine guns and sniper rifles? Because a machine gun is a victimless object? No love is lost on gun owners that decide to ruin their own lives. Unfortunately some of those killers kill innocent children.

[trinydex]

Legalize all guns? Including machine guns and sniper rifles? Because a machine gun is a victimless object? No love is lost on gun owners that decide to ruin their own lives. Unfortunately some of those killers kill innocent children.

drugs aren't protected by the second amendment or any amendment in the constitution, nor should they be. they are not a part of a person's fundamental right to protect self. they are not a part of what establishes fundamental equality. they are not a protection from overbearing government.

if you would like an anarchist capitalist state then be sure you sign up for that and all the consequences such a government (or lack there of) comes with.

[Eurodriver]

if you would like an anarchist capitalist state then be sure you sign up for that and all the consequences such a government (or lack there of) comes with.

Why do legalized drugs = anarchy? Who said anything about anarchy bro?

Just how much money and blood has to be wasted fighting the War on Drugs? I mean...its just going so well. Its impossible for me or anyone else to find crack, weed, meth, etc.

FYI - I have never in my life touched an illegal drug. But that doesn't mean I am missing the futile efforts being waged against illegal drug use. Stop stealing my money at gunpoint to fund useless endeavors.

[thopkins22]

legalize all drugs? including methamphetamine and cocaine? because crack and meth are victimless substances? no love is lost on addicts that decide to ruin their own lives. unfortunately many of those addicts have children.

also there's no real war on guns in mexico is there? they're defacto legal in the sense that there's no true systematic enforcement of the laws.

Yes, all drugs. Do you make the choice to not smoke crack because it's illegal? That's what's keeping you from making that choice?

They aren't protected from the federal government? The tenth amendment might disagree. At least during alcohol prohibition(stunning success,) they had the decency to amend the constitution to allow prohibiting it.

[trinydex]

Why do legalized drugs = anarchy? Who said anything about anarchy bro?

Just how much money and blood has to be wasted fighting the War on Drugs? I mean...its just going so well. Its impossible for me or anyone else to find crack, weed, meth, etc.

FYI - I have never in my life touched an illegal drug. But that doesn't mean I am missing the futile efforts being waged against illegal drug use. Stop stealing my money at gunpoint to fund useless endeavors.



you were comparing the second amendment protections to something that is not protected under the second amendment.

previously it was stated by another poster that freedom is the answer here.

extrapolating what you've suggested brings me to the natural conclusion of anarchocapitalism.

why regulate anything? the same argument can be applied to just about anything that is under regulation. for all kinds of things that have nothing to do with the bill of rights and what its intentions are.

why regulate banks? why regulate things that have to do with environment? why regulate education? why regulate food? same arguments that are proposed all the time. the deregulation of all these things would lead to the anarchocapitalism that i alluded to.

however do appreciate what the world truly is if those things are not regulated. that is my only point.



no one is fighting the war on drugs for you. you claim you're not a user, you're not an abuser, you're not a victim of users or abusers of drugs. why would the low intensity war against controlled substances be for you?

the same can be said about the war against teenage pregnancy (if there were one to exist). educated socioeconomically priveledged people do not need to worry about teenage pregnancy. if it happens to them their socioeconomic status can easily buffer and ameliorate their situation. the resultant kid (if a kid is the result of the oppsie) is not going to starve, not going to go without education, won't become yet another ward of the state, etc.

however it is a drastically different story for a poor kid making poor decisions who is then stuck with a poor result. the pressure is for the poor to stop, because they can't afford it, because they can't fix their mistake on their own and it ends up being a mistake we all have to live with and pay for as a society.


a rich person getting high, ruining his or her life with drug abuse, is just another story that we hear everyday. it's always a new headline that this or that hollywood rockstar has died, gone to rehab, who cares what else that has to do with substance abuse. but it doesn't really matter because rich people have enough money to hide, fix, and pay for their own mistakes.

the problem arises when people who make poor decision and have poor outcomes from those poor decision can't pay for their mistakes, can't pay for themselves, can't pay for their dependants etc.

what do you do with them as a society?

[thopkins22]

what do you do with them as a society?

Nothing.

You as a bleeding heart can choose to provide charity based treatment if you choose, and that may even be the morally right thing to do. In every country that has tried treatment vs. criminalization it has resulted in much lower usage rates and costs drastically less money.

I'm sick of this Hillary Clinton-esque "it takes a village" bullshit. Be responsible for yourself and your actions. Responsibility means different things to different people. If I'm super wealthy and can afford gucci rehab, then fine. If I'm not? Then maybe I shouldn't get hooked in the first place.

Same with gambling. I can't afford to gamble like rich people, so should all gambling be illegal? Should there be means testing to see if you're allowed in the casino? Get out of here...it's ridiculous.

Also...your thoughts on the 10th amendment as it relates to what the federal government does would be appreciated.


why regulate anything? the same argument can be applied to just about anything that is under regulation. for all kinds of things that have nothing to do with the bill of rights and what its intentions are.

why regulate banks? why regulate things that have to do with environment? why regulate education? why regulate food? same arguments that are proposed all the time. the deregulation of all these things would lead to the anarchocapitalism that i alluded to.


Way to list things that are amongst the best reasons against regulating services and products. We highly regulate all of those things and it's been a disaster.

Anarchocapitalism implies that we don't believe there is a role for government sanctioned courts or law enforcement of any kind. You're arguing against something that nobody suggested. We need laws against fraud, theft, and violence...and that's about it.


ETA: Also you're implying that violence would disappear in Mexico if gun control were more heavily enforced. That's ridiculous and proven false the world over. You're also forgetting what creates violence around black markets. It's the inability to settle grievances in court. Coors and Budweiser aren't in a shooting war are they?

[THCDDM4]

you were comparing the second amendment protections to something that is not protected under the second amendment.

previously it was stated by another poster that freedom is the answer here.

Freedom is the answer and always will be- as long as logic is your comapss. More authority/less liberty always leads to negative ends; be it drugs, guns, money, etc (History is replete with example after example for you to research); and people will still be using those drugs regardless of "regulation" & legality.

extrapolating what you've suggested brings me to the natural conclusion of anarchocapitalism.

why regulate anything? the same argument can be applied to just about anything that is under regulation. for all kinds of things that have nothing to do with the bill of rights and what its intentions are.

Indeed- why regulate anything in an artificial manner when natural free market regualtion creates a form of capitalism much superior to the crony capitalism that "regulation" (Really deregulation) by governments creates? The back door deals and palm greasing deregulates the market more so than a free market ever possibly could. Again you can look to history.[/U]

why regulate banks? why regulate things that have to do with environment? why regulate education? why regulate food? same arguments that are proposed all the time. the deregulation of all these things would lead to the anarchocapitalism that i alluded to.

Taking away the government regulations that actually deregualte these things would lead to a purer form of capitalism and a free market that would need to be regualted by those that exist in said free market. Govt. regulation just leads to insider manipulation and crony capitalism- something that is plagueing our country right now...[/U]

however do appreciate what the world truly is if those things are not regulated. that is my only point.

The world would be free from govt. interference and crony capitalism, it would be the responsibility of each consumer to gain reasonable market accumen- and the free market regulates itself without the crony capitalism that harms us as individuals and as a whole. Govt. regulation begets deregulation/crony capitalism and the negative consequences so easily observed with such systems in place.


no one is fighting the war on drugs for you. you claim you're not a user, you're not an abuser, you're not a victim of users or abusers of drugs. why would the low intensity war against controlled substances be for you?

The war on drugs is endless, not working AT ALL, and responsible for more damage than what the war seeks to fight-is that prudent in any fashion? Is that a positive thing to create a war on things that cause less damage than the war itself whilst at the same time costing the nation TONS of resources and money that could be MUCH better spent elsewhere!?!?!?!?!?/COLOR]

the same can be said about the war against teenage pregnancy (if there were one to exist). educated socioeconomically priveledged people do not need to worry about teenage pregnancy. if it happens to them their socioeconomic status can easily buffer and ameliorate their situation. the resultant kid (if a kid is the result of the oppsie) is not going to starve, not going to go without education, won't become yet another ward of the state, etc.

however it is a drastically different story for a poor kid making poor decisions who is then stuck with a poor result. the pressure is for the poor to stop, because they can't afford it, because they can't fix their mistake on their own and it ends up being a mistake we all have to live with and pay for as a society.

[COLOR="red"]So paying for it twice and wasting resources better spent elsewhere is the answer to this problem? People use drugs and are always going to. PERIOD. The "war on drugs" is a total misnomer- it is really a "war on human nature". You cannot legislate human nature away- you can only live with it.


a rich person getting high, ruining his or her life with drug abuse, is just another story that we hear everyday. it's always a new headline that this or that hollywood rockstar has died, gone to rehab, who cares what else that has to do with substance abuse. but it doesn't really matter because rich people have enough money to hide, fix, and pay for their own mistakes.

the problem arises when people who make poor decision and have poor outcomes from those poor decision can't pay for their mistakes, can't pay for themselves, can't pay for their dependants etc.

what do you do with them as a society?

[U]Allow them to make the mistakes and allow them to deal with the consequences. That's what we already do (kind of, whislt wasting money to try and make it all better- as if we can?), we just have a "War" that has no defined sides or end goal in reality that is costing us billions and tons of LE resources. You cannot legislate away human nature, you can wage a war against it, but as we can easily see, it does nothing but waste, waste, waste...

Waging war on human nature is ignorant, overly expensive and has no real tangible goal to be achieved. You cannot stop humans from being humans- you can only put them in jail (Costing us even more money- and they still do/have access to drugs there!!!!!!) and turn them into criminals that again costs us more money to deal with as the strain on society becomes greater and greater.

I posit we have more of an "authority" problem than we do a "drug" problem or a "gun" problem.

It should be easy for anyone to see that Newtons 3rd law is at work here.

"When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction to that of the first body."

Make drugs illegal, it is a more lucrative enterprise to be involved in and draws more people who will be involved. Amp up the war, it becomes more lucrative and the risk/reward ratio draws more people; and so on and so forth...

Can you see where this leads?

It has always boggled my mind that people can actually believe that the war on drugs has netted any positive benefit- other than those who draw a paycheck from the war being implemented- on BOTH SIDES!.

It's as if these people believe that before we waged war on drugs, the drug problem was so bad society was doomed because of it. [U]That is not reality. (As evidenced by prohibition!)

The reality is that it has made things much worse and much more expensive than they were before.

Think about the cost just to imprison drug offenders alone. And then the strain on our economy after they are out of the system being a strain on the system as the "opportunities" they have are severly limited due to the criminal record they now have.

The same % will become wards of the state regardless of any war we wage. The war just increases the cost and strain on society and the individual.

Let them do drugs and die, or reform/become contributors and that strain is MUCH less than them doing that anyways and creating a billion dollar war to fight that will be lost by default.

[trinydex]

Nothing.

You as a bleeding heart can choose to provide charity based treatment if you choose, and that may even be the morally right thing to do. In every country that has tried treatment vs. criminalization it has resulted in much lower usage rates and costs drastically less money.

I'm sick of this Hillary Clinton-esque "it takes a village" bullshit. Be responsible for yourself and your actions. Responsibility means different things to different people. If I'm super wealthy and can afford gucci rehab, then fine. If I'm not? Then maybe I shouldn't get hooked in the first place.

Same with gambling. I can't afford to gamble like rich people, so should all gambling be illegal? Should there be means testing to see if you're allowed in the casino? Get out of here...it's ridiculous.

Also...your thoughts on the 10th amendment as it relates to what the federal government does would be appreciated.

i agree that one should take responsible for self and ones own actions. however there will always be a statistically certain amount of people who don't, won't or can't.

i'm not at all saying that there shouldn't be responsibility. actually i'm wondering how do you keep those types from affecting others, particularly the innocent others? what do we do with them? hide them away? get rid of them? what do you do? it is certain they will exist. there's no getting around it, statistics and human diversity suggest they will be there... what to do with them? how do you segregate them or quarantine them so all the other lives in the world stay sanitary?


on the tenth, i know that by your questioning you do no believe it is very well intact. specifically regarding the legalization of each state, different federally controlled substances, i would agree that there is some comprimise.

the comprimise in general (not specifically regarding controlled substances) largely comes from the complexity of the modern world.

as to the comprimise with regards to controlled substances, it could just be a matter of time before the federal government, through legislation or otherwise, step away from the choice each individual state makes to prohibitting marijuana or not. i would say it's unrealistic to think the united states citizens at large would allow the uncontrolled acquisition of cocaine and methamphetamine.

[trinydex]

Freedom is the answer and always will be- as long as logic is your comapss. More authority/less liberty always leads to negative ends; be it drugs, guns, money, etc (History is replete with example after example for you to research); and people will still be using those drugs regardless of "regulation" & legality.


actually i think history is littered with balancing and counterbalancing actions. as a fundamental principle there will always be a tetering between many different dichotomies. the many part is intentional and hopefully invokes the imagery of not a seesaw but a nonspinning top. how do you balance so many different dichotomies? or perhaps your argument is not to balance but instead just stay to one side. good luck with that then. a very simple principle comes to mind to address that. the best, most efficient, most powerful car in the world is of no use if no one buys it. an ideal government to one person is useless if the entire world finds it unuseful. such a world may very well work for you as an individual, maybe even your ten best friends (although i highly doubt it). but let's extrapolate what's required for massive adaptation...




Indeed- why regulate anything in an artificial manner when natural free market regualtion creates a form of capitalism much superior to the crony capitalism that "regulation" (Really deregulation) by governments creates? The back door deals and palm greasing deregulates the market more so than a free market ever possibly could. Again you can look to history.



you say this assuming that pure capitalism is the best. in a world without regulation, what prevents or stops the cheat? the massive cheat even? and perhaps the argument is made that nothing can prevent the cheat, then who does the reclamation after the cheat is caught? do we just ensure that there is no equity in life? maybe equality is overrated, maybe there's no need for that. does unadultered capitalism really assure the best behavior from people? all types of people? perhaps there's no assurance for good behavior from people? what to do with malbehaved people then?



Taking away the government regulations that actually deregualte these things would lead to a purer form of capitalism and a free market that would need to be regualted by those that exist in said free market. Govt. regulation just leads to insider manipulation and crony capitalism- something that is plagueing our country right now...

The world would be free from govt. interference and crony capitalism, it would be the responsibility of each consumer to gain reasonable market accumen- and the free market regulates itself without the crony capitalism that harms us as individuals and as a whole. Govt. regulation begets deregulation/crony capitalism and the negative consequences so easily observed with such systems in place.


by what you have said you have already admitted that even in a "pure" capitalist model there will be cronies and cronie capitalism, they'll just be called rich guys. those who have power can leverage it, this is true of any system of governance or otherwise. it would not be different if there were no governors, their description will just be changed to people who have leverage.

humans can be short sighted. of course many can be long viewed. short sightedness creates the problems associated with immediate gratification, the lack of defered value or defered gratification. this creates instability in a reward system, naturally. if the system's stability need not be regarded in the decision theory then the calculation performed is always to take now and disregard later. the ability to balance a system and rebalance it and continue to evolve it so that it can adapt to the environmental changes that seek to destabilize it is what enables larger populations.

if you want a small population then be tyranical, be anarchistic, whatever, it doesn't matter if it's just you and your ten best friends. throw in a half billion people and you need much more than that.




The war on drugs is endless, not working AT ALL, and responsible for more damage than what the war seeks to fight-is that prudent in any fashion? Is that a positive thing to create a war on things that cause less damage than the war itself whilst at the same time costing the nation TONS of resources and money that could be MUCH better spent elsewhere!?!?!?!?!?/


of course it's endless... why would you expect it to end? it's pressure against something. just like the war on any crime, the war on poverty. your job is probably endless, human reproduction on this earth is functionally endless... and???? there'll always be other things to spend money, time, attention, effort etc on. would you like to add to the list? it's only ever growing... oh yeah that is endless too... the things that humans need to pay attention to and fix and make and... you get the picture.




So paying for it twice and wasting resources better spent elsewhere is the answer to this problem? People use drugs and are always going to. PERIOD. The "war on drugs" is a total misnomer- it is really a "war on human nature". You cannot legislate human nature away- you can only live with it.

Allow them to make the mistakes and allow them to deal with the consequences. That's what we already do (kind of, whislt wasting money to try and make it all better- as if we can?), we just have a "War" that has no defined sides or end goal in reality that is costing us billions and tons of LE resources. You cannot legislate away human nature, you can wage a war against it, but as we can easily see, it does nothing but waste, waste, waste...


how do we live with it? how can we force them to live with their consequences? tell me the better way that this all gets done and i'll agree with you, but you're not allowed to ignore the real consequences of what you propose. dish it out, i want to hear it, i want a better way of thinking, but it seems every time one of these discussions comes up there's an oversimplified answer that is totally unfunctional. draw me the road map of how you would do it, i'm going to read it for sure. i want to see how someone would really solve it and then spread that view.





Waging war on human nature is ignorant, overly expensive and has no real tangible goal to be achieved. You cannot stop humans from being humans- you can only put them in jail (Costing us even more money- and they still do/have access to drugs there!!!!!!) and turn them into criminals that again costs us more money to deal with as the strain on society becomes greater and greater.


what is the proposed solution?



I posit we have more of an "authority" problem than we do a "drug" problem or a "gun" problem.

It should be easy for anyone to see that Newtons 3rd law is at work here.

"When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction to that of the first body."

Make drugs illegal, it is a more lucrative enterprise to be involved in and draws more people who will be involved. Amp up the war, it becomes more lucrative and the risk/reward ratio draws more people; and so on and so forth...


this is the most common misapplication of physics that everyone repeatedly sees on the internet and it's really annoying. what you are alluding to is the law of unintended consequences. there are tons of social pressures that do not garner an equal and opposite counter force. technically such a proposal would have to work for incentives too, that the more you incentivize people the more they would pull away and that just doesn't make any damn sense, please stop trying to apply physics to sociology.



Can you see where this leads?


yes, i see where it leads, we're in it. now tell me what the alternative is and what it looks like. all the different aspects. i'll ask follow up questions and you'll have well reasoned follow up answers and that'll be educational for me.



It has always boggled my mind that people can actually believe that the war on drugs has netted any positive benefit- other than those who draw a paycheck from the war being implemented- on BOTH SIDES!.[/U]

It's as if these people believe that before we waged war on drugs, the drug problem was so bad society was doomed because of it. [U]That is not reality. (As evidenced by prohibition!)


just to be devil's advocate... why was prohibition so bad? people died, criminals got rich, people still got drunk, rich were still rich, poor were still poor, humans were still humans and their nature was still wretched. and? so given this perspective... why care about any change? why so serious?



The reality is that it has made things much worse and much more expensive than they were before.

Think about the cost just to imprison drug offenders alone. And then the strain on our economy after they are out of the system being a strain on the system as the "opportunities" they have are severly limited due to the criminal record they now have.

definitely a lot of money in this on both sides. let's say we let them all out and let's say drugs didn't exist anymore. would these same people not find something else to do that was lucrative enough for them to sacrifice long term prosperity for short term reward. afterall this is their nature. they'll be into something else immediately. something for which we have to put them in prison for. sure some are just users or petty criminals, but do you think that we keep those for very long? and if we did once there is over crowding those are the first to leave. but there'll still be that statistically certain amount that by circumstance, genetics, many other social factors will for sure buck the societal norm and therefore not fit into society. what do we do with those?




The same % will become wards of the state regardless of any war we wage. The war just increases the cost and strain on society and the individual.

Let them do drugs and die, or reform/become contributors and that strain is MUCH less than them doing that anyways and creating a billion dollar war to fight that will be lost by default


don't you think we already let them do drugs and die? what happens when they don't die? when they don't die fast enough for your liking? when they go driving into your car, crawling into your house, etc? as if this segment could go away so easily... try again.