Profile
Search
Register
Log in
Heroin nods.
View previous topic | View next topic >

Post new topic Reply to topic
Strange Famous Forum > Hall of Fame

Author Message
MessiahCarey



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 10924
 Reply with quote  

djdee2005 wrote:
I am COMPLETELY against the sale of automatic weapons in this country as well.


I disagree, but for the same reasons I have outlined before. If Uncle Sam has automatics, we may need them too. Remember - people have and will continue to turn regular guns into automatics...when you make it illegal you are just ensuring that people will make less safe makeshift automatic-firing kits (as they do now).

djdee2005 wrote:
And in addition, you are aware that a majority of states in this country have legalized concealed handguns? Yet another law that I find completely ridiculous....


Now, this is the important part here. Gun control can ONLY WORK on people who try and LEGALLY purchase guns. You cannot conceal a weapon in ANY of these states (mine included) without a permit. You only GET a permit for a concealed weapon if you are a private detective, a security employee or a cop. Regardless, the backround check that is done on you for a concealed weapon permit can't have so much as a misdameanor on it or you are entirely assed out.

I have a non-violent drug offense under my belt that keeps me from getting a gun legally. I would NEVER kill someone with a gun, but I'd like to have one for protection of my home - just the implication that because I was arrested for ONE crime I'm automatically slated to commit another is fairly ludicris, no?

djdee2005 wrote:
Bottom line for me: If there was more control, less people would be dead. I don't care what your moral/ethical objection to gun control is, for me, any moral and ethical issues with it are far outweighed by the moral and ethical issue of 11,000+ deaths a year in this country by guns.


Here's where gun control statistics get ridiculous, kids. Haha.

How many of those 11,000+ deaths were caused by guns that were registered legally and, therefore, even subject to gun control laws to begin with?

Peace,
Shane
Post Mon Dec 02, 2002 8:22 am
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
JessicaT



Joined: 01 Dec 2002
Posts: 13
Location: Elgin, IL
 Reply with quote  

My opinion on both of these issues is that heroin is bad and guns are bad.

It's very American (good ole rugged individualism) to say individuals are to blame when they decide to pick up a needle or a weapon. People have choices, that is true. At the same time, is it the individual's fault that she is raised in a society with easy access to needles and weapons? Is it the individual's fault that she is surrounded by such horribly dreadful lives that addiction or violence often appears to be the only solution to end pain?

I'm not saying every addict or criminal should be able to say "Sorry, society made me do it." However, I do feel it's necessary to look at this from a broader angle. Focusing on individuals instead of the entire structure of society is "blaming the victim." All it does is point fingers without changing anything. If people continue to be born into the same devastating situations they will continue to seek out some release. We can blame and treat individuals as long as we want, but it won't change the underlying problem.
Post Mon Dec 02, 2002 10:53 am
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
MessiahCarey



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 10924
 Reply with quote  

JessicaT wrote:
My opinion on both of these issues is that heroin is bad and guns are bad.

It's very American (good ole rugged individualism) to say individuals are to blame when they decide to pick up a needle or a weapon. People have choices, that is true. At the same time, is it the individual's fault that she is raised in a society with easy access to needles and weapons? Is it the individual's fault that she is surrounded by such horribly dreadful lives that addiction or violence often appears to be the only solution to end pain?



I see what you're saying - and I agree that those are the problems, the difference being in how we choose to "fix" them.

To say that someone has all these horrible things around them indicates a problem FAR more deep routed than access. There is a REASON why these things are being abused...and if heroin is kicked to the curb, then another drug will take its place. If guns are outlawed, people will find a different way to kill. The problem is not SOLVED by removing the guns and heroin in your example - it is simply masked.

Which leaves it back to exactly what I was saying - it's the humans, not the inanimate objects that do things.

There were lawless rebels before there were guns.

Peace,
Shane
Post Mon Dec 02, 2002 11:04 am
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Dee



Joined: 19 Jul 2002
Posts: 7872
 Reply with quote  

I understand that guns are not the root of the problem. But its like dealing with a three year old. If you can't use your gun responsibly, I'm going to have to take it from you, even if the reason your using it irresponsibly has nothing to do with the gun.
Post Mon Dec 02, 2002 11:25 am
 View user's profile Send private message
MessiahCarey



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 10924
 Reply with quote  

djdee2005 wrote:
I understand that guns are not the root of the problem. But its like dealing with a three year old. If you can't use your gun responsibly, I'm going to have to take it from you, even if the reason your using it irresponsibly has nothing to do with the gun.


It works on a three year old because fairness isn't an issue - you "oppress" kids in the nuturing process by default so their freedom isn't a factor. This is obviously not the case with adults.

Next.

I see WHY you think that putting MORE laws on guns would help, the thing is that you're wrong. ;-)

Not to mention that you don't even have a plan - just a complaint. So you want legislation making automatic weapons illegal? Fine...I wouldn't be too adverse to that - but the insinuation that it's actually going to solve any problems in regards with deaths in this country is absolutely absurd (go ahead and look at how many of those 11,000+ were actually killed using AUTOMATICS and I think you're going to find that you're dealing with single to MAYBE double-digits...)

You want legislation that makes ALL guns illegal? It won't solve the problem of people killing each other - they'll just have shittier, slower, unhealthier, sloppier ways to do so at their disposal. People kill for REASONS. Unless those REASONS are dealt with a law restricting guns from being purchased by law abiding citizens will act as a short-term solution at best.

I guess it comes down to this:

Do you REALLY think that extra laws surrounding guns are going to lower the murder rate per capita?

If the answer is yes, then I suggest you look more at the sociological cause for killing - which is usually regarded as the disparity between the rich and the poor (botched robberies, etc). Until THAT problem is done away with, guns are just one of many methods people will use.

How is a storeowner supposed to protect himself at 2:00 in the morning if 30 guys come in saying "I'm taking your stuff" and he has no weapon?

I know you'll say "well what if they all have guns, he's still at no advantage" - but the truth of the matter is that when EVERYONE has guns in a given conflict then NOBODY can be sure that they WON'T die, and in the real world that holds a lot of weight (because with some exceptions, people usually don't want to die). I don't think this is how society should work - but it is certainly a more natural case of balance than adding rules to an already overburdened political system that only confuses people to begin with.

More gun laws = more administrations = another government beaurocracy...oh but they work everything else so well...nobody ever cheats welfare, right? Damn...Half of the trailer park I used to live in (where there are more illegal guns than your largest inner-city stockpile, beleive that) were illegal gun owners AND welfare cheaters (paid under the table while receiving benefits, imitation disability claims, etc.). Now I'm not trying to insinuate that welfare cheaters are the end of our society, but I'm using it as an example that government run agencies are sloppy at best - adding more laws just seeks to confuse these agencies even more while they are running at minimum efficiency.

So basically...gun control is a great theory - but we really don't need any more laws (especially ones that don't solve the problem they're set out to). We'll work on gun control when we pass a law to axe out the Information Awarness Office, okay? Heh.

Peace,
Shane
Post Mon Dec 02, 2002 12:16 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
MessiahCarey



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 10924
 Reply with quote  

Damn. I guess I DO sound like a Libertarian on this issue.

Haha.

So be it.

Peace,
Shane
Post Mon Dec 02, 2002 12:25 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Dee



Joined: 19 Jul 2002
Posts: 7872
 Reply with quote  

First off, illegalizing automatic weapons would save lives. Regardless of the number, even if its in the double digits, it would be worth it.
Second, blaming the desparity of wealthy-poor for gun violence is stupid because Canada has the same despairity and, in fact, a HIGHER rate of unemployment, and yet have FAR fewer gun deaths.
Now, I NEVER claimed that increasing gun control would SOLVE the gun problem. But it will save lives. And as far as I'm concerned, that's an important priority. Guns are readily available, and I don't find that to be reassuring in the least.
your example of the store owner being ransacked is also ridiculous...if a store owner is ransacked by 10 guys, chances are they'll have a gun too, and you end up killing multiple people...I get this picture of the country being like the wild west, with everyone holding a gun because of they're "consititutional rights" as hundreds are being killed unneccessarily.

And yes, 3 year olds don't have freedom...but neither do we. We don't have the freedom to endanger the lives of other people. And by owning a gun, that is just what we are doing. Once again, I point out that a person who owns a gun is more likely to kill a family member than a home invader. I think I could make a good case for owning a gun being negligence based purely on this fact.
Post Mon Dec 02, 2002 3:59 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
sliquid



Joined: 30 Oct 2002
Posts: 173
Location: Kansass City
 Reply with quote  

MessiahCarey wrote:
Reggie wrote:
djdee2005 wrote:
I'm quite positive that most guns did NOT come through military stockpiles.
Could you elaborate on how this system works? I've never even heard this before.


Ice-T spoke on this as early as 1985, that freight cars loaded with guns would come through South Central and gang members would basically get their pick. I mean, the gun of choice on the streets of LA during the 80's was the AK-47...a gun you can't even get in the average rifle store and which is really hard to get even as a collector. I wish I had a whole lot of written substantiation, but I don't, I just know what I know from experience. Much of what I have seen and heard and experienced involving illegal guns you won't see written about on the internet, anyway. But that article last Spring or the one before about the CIA trading drugs on the streets of L.A. for guns that were shipped to Nicaragua was very illuminating about this corruption, I wish someone could chime in and provide a link to it. It was written for the SF Chronicle, I believe.



The gentleman that blew the whistle on this whole thing (CIA trading guns/drugs, etc., to inner city gangs) has a website at www.copvcia.com - unfortunately he charges a premium to get into the site, but if you do a search for his name (escapes me at this second) I'm sure you'll see some info on the whole fiasco.

Peace,
Shane


I came upon something not too long ago that talks about this.
http://www.nexusmagazine.com/beast1.html

"Selling drugs to fight communism has to be one of the biggest ironies of the 20th century.

"At the CIA there were a few people in the right positions who blamed the decline of American culture on people of color living in the United States," said Carone. "The blame of the fall of American culture began with the creation of the National Security Memorandum 200, which stated among other things the concern of overpopulation in the United States. Many at the CIA attributed it to the birthrate among people of color, and there were some at the CIA that felt that physical slavery could be replaced by pharmaceutical slavery, and that's why African-American gangs, i.e., 'Bloods' and 'Crips', were singled out for distributing the drugs brought into the United States by the CIA."

Carone also told Tyree that he had "...delivered money to the Los Angeles - based gangs, i.e., the Bloods and the Crips, which are among the most violent African-American gangs in the United States. He had delivered money to the gangs because they were on the CIA payroll under Executive Order 12333 which allowed for the CIA to hire outside sources to help the CIA perform their jobs. He had delivered money to the gangs because they transported drugs across the United States, i.e., Atlanta, Norfolk, Philadelphia, New York and Boston."

Carone's information dovetails exactly with the in-depth investigations of Gary Webb in his book, Dark Alliance (Seven Stories Press, 1998).

Despite documented evidence by government whistleblowers, the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Department of Justice (DoJ) have never been held accountable for their collusion in and/or acquiescence to drug trafficking. On March 15, 1999, however, class action lawsuits were filed by attorneys Katya Komisaruk, William M. Simpich and Kenneth Frucht on behalf of Rosemary Lyons and Olivia Woods in northern California and Donna J. Warren and Berlina M. Doss in southern California (Case No. 99-02603).

The suit names the Central Intelligence Agency, the United States Department of Justice, Estate of William Casey, Robert Gates, John Deutch, George Tenet, Estate of William French Smith, Edwin Meese, Richard Thornburgh, Janet Reno and others as Defendants, alleging that these US Government agencies and employees were responsible for the 1980s crack cocaine epidemic and the resulting social and economic devastation of inner city communities.

According to the Statement of Facts: "On March 16, 1998, CIA Inspector-General Frederick Hitz appeared before the House Intelligence Committee to report on his investigation of the CIA, the Contras and crack cocaine. Hitz testified that, beginning in 1982, the CIA entered into an undisclosed agreement with the Department of Justice, allowing CIA officers to refrain from reporting drug trafficking by its 'agents, assets and non-staff employees'. Hitz admitted that 'there are instances where the CIA did not, in an expeditious or consistent fashion, cut off relationships with individuals supporting the Contra program, who were alleged to have engaged in drug trafficking activity, or take action to resolve the allegation'.

"When asked by Congressman Norman Dicks of Washington, 'Did any of these allegations involve trafficking in the United States?', Hitz's answer was 'Yes'. Hitz acknowledged that the CIA knew of drug trafficking allegations 'regarding dozens of individuals and a number of companies connected in some fashion to the Contra program or the Contra movement'.

"Hitz recounts in Volume II of the Inspector-General's Report dated 10/9/98 that through the secret agreement, the CIA and DoJ attempted to exempt the CIA from reporting about the drug trafficking of persons employed by, assigned to, or acting for an agency within the intelligence community."

Since the CIA itself admitted to having knowledge of its own "assets" being involved in illegal activities, the argument seems to be indisputable.

"Plaintiff claims that the CIA/DoJ agreement violated a federal statute, 28 USC 535," the lawsuit alleges, "which imposes a duty on every department and agency in the Executive Branch to report promptly to the Attorney General any information, allegations or complaints relating to possible violations of [criminal law] by officers and employees of the government."

In other words, if federal agency employees are aware of violations, these must also be reported. There is another category of criminal code violation called "misprision of felony", which refers to the offence of concealing knowledge of a felony by one who has not participated in it. CIA officials could be charged with this as well.

"The private CIA/DoJ agreement attempted to get around this federal law by redefining the term 'employee' to mean only full-time career officials - as opposed to persons 'employed by, assigned to, or acting for an agency within the intelligence community'. In addition, the secret agreement violated Executive Order 12333 issued in 1981, which required the reporting of drug crimes."

The suit also states that the 1989 Kerry Report ("Drugs, Law Enforcement and Foreign Policy") made specific findings that "drug trafficking had pervaded the entire Contra war effort, that 'one or another agency of the US Government had information regarding the involvement either while it was occurring or immediately after' and that 'senior policy makers were not immune to the idea that drug money was a perfect solution to the Contras' funding problems'".

A Little History, Please

"In the opening phase of the crack cocaine epidemic, between 1982 and 1986, CIA officers and other intelligence agencies received reports regarding Bay Area cocaine importers Norman Meneses and Danilo Blandon," the class action lawsuit alleges.

"Both of these men were among the primary importers in the United States and dominated the market on the West Coast. Because of the secret CIA/DoJ agreement which purported to exempt the CIA from having to report drug crimes, cocaine suppliers connected with the Contras or other US covert operations were able to import their 'unregulated product' under the cloak of national security.

"Meneses and Blandon funneled vast quantities of cocaine, at a price far lower than other suppliers, to 'Freeway Rick' Ross, who proceeded to flood south-central Los Angeles with a new, low-cost product dubbed 'crack'. By 1984, Ross was selling 150 kilograms of cocaine every week, enough to put 3,000,000 doses of crack on LA's streets every seven days.

"The crack cocaine epidemic enveloped Los Angeles between 1982 and 1986. Government documents show that the CIA and DoJ knew or should have known of the massive importations by Meneses, Blandon and other cocaine supplying operations," the lawsuit continues.

"Common sense and a review of the news coverage for that period indicate that these agencies knew or should have known that their ongoing policy of deliberate silence allowed the crack epidemic to rage unchecked. The CIA turned its back while shipment after shipment of this new, intensely addictive form of cocaine was delivered to one of Ross's five cookhouses and then put up for sale throughout south-central Los Angeles and Compton. The result was the death of men, women and children, the collapse of businesses and the destruction of whole neighborhoods.

"Once the initial southern California market was glutted, crack moved north. Mid-level dealers diverted the flow to other African-American communities in California, such as East Palo Alto, San Francisco, Oakland and Richmond. The consequences to these communities, in terms of loss of life, family structure and economic power, continue to this day."

The lawsuit categorised two classes of plaintiffs: (a) inner city residents of northern and southern California (Alameda, Contra Costa, San Francisco, San Mateo counties), "largely African-American, who experienced particular economic, physical and/or emotional injuries arising from the neighborhoods hardest hit by the crack cocaine epidemic, such as addictions to crack, death or absence of loved ones due to drug-related crimes, reduction of income and increase in the number of dependents", and (b) "residents of the metropolitan areas of the counties listed above who experienced injuries suffered by the community as a whole, such as lack of safety, overburdened social services, loss of local businesses and damage to the tax base"
Post Mon Dec 02, 2002 4:19 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
ILuvChicken



Joined: 08 Jul 2002
Posts: 161
 Reply with quote  

THat "OtherOnes" concert comment wasn't funny. I went to a show last night and I saw no junkies there at all! SO fuck you pal!!!!

Jerry We need you!
Post Mon Dec 02, 2002 7:13 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
MessiahCarey



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 10924
 Reply with quote  

djdee2005 wrote:
We don't have the freedom to endanger the lives of other people. And by owning a gun, that is just what we are doing.


THIS is where we disagree.

Can't talk this to death.

Peace,
Shane
Post Mon Dec 02, 2002 9:29 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Dee



Joined: 19 Jul 2002
Posts: 7872
 Reply with quote  

I'm not sure which sentence you're disagreeing with....but either way, I stand by that statement completely.
Post Mon Dec 02, 2002 9:37 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
SFgrinch415



Joined: 02 Dec 2002
Posts: 1
 Reply with quote  

MessiahCarey wrote:
Can't talk this to death.


youre talking me to death already. what the fuck is wrong with the idiots on this board?
Post Mon Dec 02, 2002 11:01 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
Dee



Joined: 19 Jul 2002
Posts: 7872
 Reply with quote  

Shut up.
Post Mon Dec 02, 2002 11:12 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
Sfmindtrap2



Joined: 20 Sep 2002
Posts: 87
 Reply with quote  

dont trip sf grinch, im kinda enjoying this, im in SF too by the way, and oh yeah


RIGHT ON SHANE!
Post Mon Dec 02, 2002 11:17 pm
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Dee



Joined: 19 Jul 2002
Posts: 7872
 Reply with quote  

"Right on Shane"? What the fuck....


You all trust people to behave with guns waaay too much.
Post Mon Dec 02, 2002 11:24 pm
 View user's profile Send private message

Post new topic Reply to topic
Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
All times are GMT - 6 Hours.
The time now is Wed Nov 26, 2014 9:11 pm
  Display posts from previous:      


Powered by phpBB: © 2001 phpBB Group
Template created by The Fathom
Based on template of Nick Mahon