If you support the second amendment, you must oppose drug prohibition

a reply to: Vroomfondel

The trouble with that idea is that while having everyone armed may mean certain death to any terrorist deciding to shoot up the place, the odds on their being a Terrorist where I'm at are extremely low.

However, just having everyone armed where I'm at doesn't make me feel very safe because people are a bunch of emotionally immature A-holes sometimes.

Which means it's more likely that one of them would act stupid and pull his weapon than the possibility of a terrorist coming through the door to shoot up the place.

Plus all it takes is for one guy to lose his sh*t and pull his gun, then the next guy pulls his to be a hero and stop the first guy and then everyone's got their guns out and shooting up the place.

But sure, in the extremely unlikely case of a bad guy terrorist, maybe a good guy with a gun might be good. However, ten good guys with guns maybe not so much because that is a lot of shooting going on and it may not be clear who the bad guy is and who the good guy is.

Think about the average people you meet all day long. Most of them, I don't think I'd feel safe knowing they are armed all the time. Most of them aren't very good when it comes to making normal choices let alone one that serious.

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Sorry, the proposition was that you have to support legalization of drugs in order to support right to keep and bear ... not support the legalization of only certain drugs ... you know, the ones you approve of and/or deem harmless.

So you can't cop out by:

1.) Claiming that everyone else is fully ignorant.

2.) Claiming that you know *wink, wink*; nudge, nudge* what was really meant when that was not stated in the OP.

Either you must support right to keep and bear AND full legalization of drugs, not just a few but all, or you don't.

That's fair to say, I think, but I would add the caveat that opposing drug prohibition does not mean opposing all regulation of drug markets. I think there should be room for nuance, there, just as I think there is room for nuance on the matter of bearing arms.

Oh, so now we see it ... you are trying to make an argument for gun control based on most people being wary of full legalization.

Right.

Here's the thing: I could care less what you choose to do with yourself on your own time and dime and in your own space ... right up until you start to demand social safety nets to catch you when you fall off the world and can't care for yourself anymore.

You want to legalize dangerous drugs? Fine. Keep your habit in your own life and don't ask society to subsidize you if that habit ruins you and yours. Understand that I don't buy that I owe your dependents anything if you end up ruining them right along with you.

You want libertarianism, I can go with that so long as we are talking the full expression and not simply the legalizing of your pet vices but not the concurrent dismantling of the social safety net that would subsidize you in your vice.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Sorry, the proposition was that you have to support legalization of drugs in order to support right to keep and bear ... not support the legalization of only certain drugs ... you know, the ones you approve of and/or deem harmless.

So you can't cop out by:

1.) Claiming that everyone else is fully ignorant.

2.) Claiming that you know *wink, wink*; nudge, nudge* what was really meant when that was not stated in the OP.

Either you must support right to keep and bear AND full legalization of drugs, not just a few but all, or you don't.

That's fair to say, I think, but I would add the caveat that opposing drug prohibition does not mean opposing all regulation of drug markets. I think there should be room for nuance, there, just as I think there is room for nuance on the matter of bearing arms.

Oh, so now we see it ... you are trying to make an argument for gun control based on most people being wary of full legalization.

Right.

Wrong. My argument is exactly what it appears to be: that it is a logically inconsistent position. The fact that I can accept the notion of regulation instead of carte blanche access to both things is quite tangential, but of course I can see why you picked this to focus on: it's simple, convenient, and allows you to escape the burden of arguing the point.

Here's the thing: I could care less what you choose to do with yourself on your own time and dime and in your own space ... right up until you start to demand social safety nets to catch you when you fall off the world and can't care for yourself anymore.

You want to legalize dangerous drugs? Fine. Keep your habit in your own life and don't ask society to subsidize you if that habit ruins you and yours. Understand that I don't buy that I owe your dependents anything if you end up ruining them right along with you.

You want libertarianism, I can go with that so long as we are talking the full expression and not simply the legalizing of your pet vices but not the concurrent dismantling of the social safety net that would subsidize you in your vice.

My inner adult cautions me to read this as you lecturing to a hypothetical child. After all, she tells me, you know nothing at all about me and I've certainly kept it civil here. Surely we are all adults capable of respectful dialog. Hopefully she's not overly optimistic.

I think that drug prohibition is an unreasonable policy. I think that the war on drugs and the illicit markets it creates are drastically more dangerous to society and to its victims than a person who cannot handle themselves with a substance. It is a fundamentally Sisyphian undertaking the ostensible goals of which are ill thought out and opposed to personal freedom. And let's be honest, the architects of it had other goals in mind. [1]

At the risk of going off topic, to briefly respond to your reference to social safety nets:

Why is it that subsidizing a person's mistakes in life is obviously a moral crime, but subsidizing industries that play dice with the economy and the health of the banking systems, subsidizing industries that profit massively via the externality of pumping absurd amounts of trash into the environment, and subsidizing, as a citizen, dubious wars that end countless civilian lives and contribute to global strife are all things I should just buck up and accept? Who did that calculus? In states where welfare recipients are required to submit to drug tests (which I also disagree with, but which could perhaps be a reasonable political compromise to address your distress around perceived moral hazards) the rate of drug use is something like 1/10th of the general populace. So there's not much statistical evidence to back your sound and fury, here.

[1] www.cnn.com...

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
Need I point out the flaw in your logic? Rational judgement is adversely affected by mind-altering substances.

That's clearly untrue as a blanket assertion. Adderall, for example, which is essentially pharmaceutical-grade speed, is shown to enhance cognition and is prescribed broadly to address ADHD. Marijuana has judgement-debilitating effects drastically less severe than those of alcohol. We've already accepted as a society that people can make the decision to relieve themselves of higher-level cognition so long as they do it in such a way that does not put others in danger (I'm allowed to have one too many on a Friday night if that's my druthers). We ask truckers to drive until sleep deprivation impacts their ability to operate their equipment safely. We ask doctors to do surgery in the same circumstances. Are you really arguing for a society in which we legislate that everyone be operating at peak performance at all times? Seems a little dystopian to me.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
Need I point out the flaw in your logic? Rational judgement is adversely affected by mind-altering substances.

Really does power corrupt ?...Its not only drugs or alcohol that affects people minds and their rationality

It compared rational judgement and drug use. One of which negates the other.

Absolutely i just wanted to point that out...i would imagine there have been many shootings in which the shooter was drunk on power, and that power was created by the gun itself....I believe this is what the OP was alluding to...perhaps not articulated so well

While I think there could be truth to this, I'm really pointing out that we make compromises that involve trusting the judgement of others all the time, and the idea that it's okay for my neighbor to be in possession of a weapon that they could use to end my life on a moment's notice should they snap is a rather drastic example of this fact. I'm not arguing that we should not live in such a world. I am in fact arguing that we need to embrace it, be honest about it, be responsible about it, and stop destroying people's lives over, for instance, smoking a plant whose impacts are drastically less severe than those of say, drinking and playing video poker every night. I believe in personal choice and personal responsibility and I think drug prohibition is clearly in opposition to those things.

a reply to: JohnnyElohim

Thank you for clarifying and i do agree .... it most certainly comes down to personal responsibility, sadly few seem to have any and then there are those that are happy to infringe on others rights if it does not affect them in any way....a great example is the person who is all drugged up on prescription meds and calling the guy who smokes a joint a druggo and wanting him punished it just makes no rational sense...

a reply to: JohnnyElohim

You just finished going on about how something doesn't have to be in the constitution for you to have the right to do it. You have the right to put whatever you want in your body, whatever the substance may be. You can get it, you can use it, and you can do whatever you want with it. Just like wth guns.

There are restrictions on what you're legally able to do, but there's really no limitation on what can do if one doesn't care for legalities. Just like with guns.

There are penalties for doing certain things. Just like with guns.

Look, I'm terribly sorry you're trying to have a legal debate and use legal terms but then not use the actual legal definition of those phrases. You're right, it's very confusing to attempt to debate something with somebody who doesn't want to use the legal definitions of words with legal meanings in a debate about legality. Perhaps next time you can include a glossary of you're choosing to define terms, rather than whining when people use the common definitions.

In a nutshell: your idea of self-determination precludes one from HAVING to support anything. I can not give a damn about what you put in your body (I don't) and I can support the second (I do), and I can believe both need some measure of regulation on them (I do). Perhaps your argument holds water with those who believe the second means they should be able to own a battery of howitzers, but outside of those folks, not so much. The broad brush approach rarely works out. You'd think somebody who keeps insisting on structured debate would know to stay away from glaring fallacies like that.

Take care.

a reply to: JohnnyElohim

I was against the bank and auto bailouts too.

But this does not take away from my point that something that is essentially a personal thing: your desire to do recreational drugs, has far less implications for the liberty of this country and its population as a whole than whether or not we recognize that every individual is likewise expected to be responsible at at least in part for the personal safeguarding of his or her personal liberties (like recreational drug use).

Again, we go back to the analogy of the wolf and the dog. The dog often has a grand illusion of freedom, but everything your dog has comes direct from your hand and you mostly expect your dog to exist at your beck and call. The wolf lives a leaner life, but it is at no one's beck and call. At the same time, everything the dog has provided to it by it's master that may seem to make its life so enviable is the sole responsibility of the wolf to provide to itself.

The true libertarian is the wolf.

a reply to: mOjOm

That is the fear that many people speak of but if you look at the places where the majority of people have guns, that doesn't happen. Switzerland is the best example. Its law that everyone must own a gun. Yet they have one of the lowest crime rates in the world. I agree that people can be childish a**holes sometimes. But nothing is stopping them from doing that now. They have access to all manner of deadly devices yet rarely run amok.

If I were to be brutally honest, the reason we are seeing more of these mass shootings is not due to the availability of weapons. Guns have been around for hundreds of years. The total lack of respect for human life is relatively new. It is mostly due to the over-the-top, must be bigger and better than the last guy attitude we espouse in this country. People are constantly bombarded with more, bigger, louder, etc. Not to mention the crowd who want to be kardashian famous. Instant fame for outrageous behavior. And the next is even more outrageous than the last. Certainly, there are people who act out due to political or religious views. But I think in this country they are the minority. Its the people who cant stop filming themselves playing the knock out game. Its not enough to blind side someone, you have to record yourself doing it and attack the oldest most feeble target you can find for more impact. That mentality is responsible for a lot of what we are seeing in this country.

If we really want to figure this out, we will have to determine what is different about the US compared to other countries with low crime rates. We would do well also to compare what the US has in common with other countries with high crime rates. I think it tells an interesting story, if you can be honest enough to admit what you are seeing.

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim
There is no sane world in which you can believe that we should trust the independent judgement of a gun-owner to use an item built for dealing death to consistently make a rational judgement with regard to their power and responsibility as a gun-owner while also believing that a person cannot make a rational judgement to use a mind-altering substance.

This is my thesis. I am pro-second, though I am also quite open to the idea that society should be able to intercede. If you have acted out in ways that rather unambiguously suggest you are given to violence, perhaps we ought not to put in your hands an item that makes the decision to end lives cheap, easy, and effective. But I do not understand how we would hold the right to deal death in a higher regard than the right to ingest what you will and control what influences your mind and body without the influence of government.

Agreed in the premise that the argument has evolved into, that they are both natural rights. I think it's poorly framed in this OP paragraph. If you look at the way it's phrased, it could be interpreted as you asking the reader to devalue the second amendment.

Aside from that, yes. Agree. People should be free to ingest whatever they want. An individual's body is their ultimate piece of property. You could take away every worldly possession from a person and they would still own their body. For government force to be applied punitively to prevent this sort of behavior is so wrong in my opinion. Think of the social costs, lawmakers! How many millions of lives ruined, felons created, prisons filled, families separated, all in the name of government intervention into personal lifestyle decisions. If something is poison, put it in a bottle marked poison and call it a day.

Traditionally in US politics, conservatives hold the view that we should outlaw all drugs but permit and encourage the possession of deadly weapons. I'm interested in hearing the justifications for this, or if ATS conservatives do not agree, the reasons for which they are willing to support a freedom-opposing draconian structure.

I think you'll find "freedom-opposing draconian structure" on both sides of the aisle, so don't kid yourself there. I'm a Libertarian, so I wouldn't exactly call myself a conservative. Either major party has a screwed perspective, in my opinion.

This issue is a good example of that. Neither major party will advocate for ending drug prohibition(except perhaps as an empty ploy), and they do not reflect public opinion on this issue in my opinion. I believe based on my personal experience that most people are pro-legalization, or pro-decriminalization at the very least. I've interviewed at least a thousand people over the years, steering the conversation that direction when the opportunity appeared. Probably more like ten thousand or more, now that I think about it. Republican or Democrat voting, doesn't matter.

The cross sections that tended to hold this point of view most often in my experience were some government class, and victims of state or religious propaganda. Mostly folks who were generally misinformed on the drug issue, but not all. Some would have other reasons for their point of view, surely. I think there is a small subculture within American society that is extremely anti-drug that sort of carries the baton.

I'm well aware of the horrors of drug addiction, due to countless experiences with addicts of every type in my life's experience. I have also studied this issue academically a bit.

originally posted by: projectvxn

originally posted by: monkeyluv
The Second isn't about the right to bear arms. Instead, it uses the right to justify the formation of militias regulated by the government.

Further broken down:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,"

That's an incomplete declarative sentence. The comma separates the declaration from the purpose of the sentence as a whole.

There is no "well regulated" clause. It's a declarative statement. You could pull the first word 'A' and make it a clause and it would still be without meaning.

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

That sentence give meaning to the declaration. The militia is the people. Sufficiently armed and equipped, and the right of the people to keep and bear those arms shall not be infringed.

Basic structure of English. Even for 1791 when the Second Amendment was ratified.

At no point does the declarative portion of this sentence confer any conditions. The only condition expressed in the second amendment is that the government will not infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Next you'll tell us all about how the second amendment only applies to muskets because the Founders were too stupid to conceptualize anything more advanced, right?

Well you'd be wrong there too.

Look up the Puckle Gun and the Girandoni Air Rifle.

No, it's not a complete declarative sentence but a clause. That's why there's a comma at the end.

The second clause is also not a sentence because there's a comma before it.

The Second is one sentence, not two. That's why there's only one period at the end of it.

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: monkeyluv
The Second isn't about the right to bear arms. Instead, it uses the right to justify the formation of militias regulated by the government.

That is not at all what "well regulated" meant to the framers.

At all.

No, that's what they meant. Look up Art. 1 Sec. 8 and the Militia Acts.

If you support the second amendment, you must oppose drug prohibition

Yes people.

Legalized drugs, and BAN GUNS.

Soma is only a puff away.

Read Brave New World by Huxley and see how close we are to that 'paradise'.

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: monkeyluv
The Second isn't about the right to bear arms. Instead, it uses the right to justify the formation of militias regulated by the government.

Please understand the 18th Century definition of "regulated" means "orderly" as in "trained".....not under regulatory laws as the modern definition implies. Context is everything when interpreting the Constitution.

These are snippets from an 18th Century dictionary, which provides the definitions as the founders understood them and meant them in that document.

But states already had militias in place before the Second was written, and were used for law enforcement and to deal with slave revolts. However, they were not required to deal with insurrection or foreign invasions, and that was what the federal government needed.

That's why the meaning of "regulated" is seen in Art. 1 Sec. 8 of the Constitution and the Militia Acts.

Thus, states were allowed to continue forming militias as they had done before the Second was written, but this time any part of them could be ordered by the federal government to support the Union. In addition, the Militia Acts provided for mandatory national service.

It's your right as an individual to make these kinds of choices, be it what you consume, who you associate with, or what you do with your life. It doesn't need to be in writing because it's common sense.

I'd say it makes sense to criminalize destructive drugs, but that's clearly not what the United States has been doing. Using drugs is an inalienable right by definition.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: JohnnyElohim

You just finished going on about how something doesn't have to be in the constitution for you to have the right to do it. You have the right to put whatever you want in your body, whatever the substance may be. You can get it, you can use it, and you can do whatever you want with it. Just like wth guns.

There are restrictions on what you're legally able to do, but there's really no limitation on what can do if one doesn't care for legalities. Just like with guns.

There are penalties for doing certain things. Just like with guns.

Look, I'm terribly sorry you're trying to have a legal debate and use legal terms but then not use the actual legal definition of those phrases. You're right, it's very confusing to attempt to debate something with somebody who doesn't want to use the legal definitions of words with legal meanings in a debate about legality. Perhaps next time you can include a glossary of you're choosing to define terms, rather than whining when people use the common definitions.

In a nutshell: your idea of self-determination precludes one from HAVING to support anything. I can not give a damn about what you put in your body (I don't) and I can support the second (I do), and I can believe both need some measure of regulation on them (I do). Perhaps your argument holds water with those who believe the second means they should be able to own a battery of howitzers, but outside of those folks, not so much. The broad brush approach rarely works out. You'd think somebody who keeps insisting on structured debate would know to stay away from glaring fallacies like that.

Take care.

It's too bad that you can't read my words with an open mind or discuss the issue without moving the goal posts. I have told you several times that I am making a philosophical argument, not a legal one. It seems you don't hear those words because you are busy feeling confident on the turf where you'd rather be having the debate. I'm not sure what drives you to plug your ears and insist I'm saying things I'm not. Is this a personal issue for you? Have you got an issue with me for some reason? Whatever the case, the hollow "take care" at the end of your post serves only to show you as disingenuous and bent on rudeness. Please, don't let me keep you from the door.

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

I agree with nearly everything you've written here. I think that the second amendment and gun control are such loaded issues in US politics that you can't say much with nuance without triggering some deep emotions. I probably should have left out the part about being willing to accept some degree of regulation. It might be my position, and I might not believe that's anti-second, but I think that pro-second stalwarts read that as meaning that my argument was in fact meant to undermine both things, when it was in fact intended to say the opposite: if you believe the right to keep bear arms is important, the philosophical river you take from implies a lot of other things, including that the government has no business compelling me by force to put some things in my body and not others. I think it's both impractical and unwise to try to walk back legalization of firearms. I think there's room for discussion around the minimization of risk and harms here, but I wasn't trying to make this the venue. I felt like it was important to say that to prevent the discussion from being totally binary, but I see that it's given some the wrong impression.

originally posted by: spite
It's your right as an individual to make these kinds of choices, be it what you consume, who you associate with, or what you do with your life. It doesn't need to be in writing because it's common sense.

I'd say it makes sense to criminalize destructive drugs, but that's clearly not what the United States has been doing. Using drugs is an inalienable right by definition.

At present the opposite is in writing and that's why the discussion is worth having. The state has been empowered to use deadly force to control what I put in my body.

originally posted by: neo96
If you support the second amendment, you must oppose drug prohibition

Yes people.

Legalized drugs, and BAN GUNS.

Soma is only a puff away.

Read Brave New World by Huxley and see how close we are to that 'paradise'.

No one here is saying that.

originally posted by: =20871343]ketsuko[/post]
Which basic unalienable right do drugs support?

Guns support our basic unalienable right to defend our person and property which we also have a right to.

Its freedom over ones own body.

The goverment have no right to regulate what we put in it.