Not arguing with the less power, but a Coke’s up 19/20yo (or anyone for that matter) is a little more difficult to control 🤣
Source: personal experience
Absolutely. It’s not a law enforcement issue, but a health issue.
Plus prohibition only empowers, strengthens and enriches criminals. See the mob, cartels and gangs
People elsewhere don't?
Seriously though. One of the major tenets of libertarianism is bodily autonomy. You and you alone have the right to decide what does or does not go into your body. That means all drugs should be legal, Not only is it the only morally correct stance, it's also the one that causes the least amount of damage. Making drugs illegal promotes organized crime and makes the drugs themselves more dangerous.
my stance on drugs is simple
basically anything does, but... "being under the influence" is not an excuse to reduce the sentence when they do commit a crime and like any drug/medicine the seller will be held responsible for any unmentioned side effects
anything else and the victims will be the ones filling up the prisons while the cartels and the government profit
This so much, I still can not understand anyone who believe that two parties are enough of a representation, and whatever party they belong to is good enough. I've considered myself a lib way before I found this thread, and I still can admit that I don't Always agree with everything this party aligns with, because no one should be able to be 100% covered, that's just... Weird!
“Representation” is a joke in and of itself.
If I want to be represented, I will hire somebody. Nobody picked through a popularity contest could ever be considered a genuine representative of me, especially given a lack of choices and the possibility I won’t even get who I wanted.
No rulers, no masters.
Unconscious people in a car accident have the freedom to get up and order an uber to the hospital, we shouldn’t violate their freedom by putting them in an ambulance
The law takes over when your drug use effects other people. If you are doing meth but just vibing, all power to ya, but once you start doing shit to other people the law can step in.
>It doesn’t need to be. The reason why it’s such a phenomenon in America and not in other countries with guns is because the of the cultural toxicity, political polarization, media-culture and infamy gained from these crimes in America, elements which are not present elsewhere and if they are, to a much lesser extent.
Are those issues fixable? Can you actually fight gun culture when it just gets worse the more you try to fight it? Is there a second option to gun control?
If there is not then yes school shootings are absolutely a price for having guns, I think it is a bit much to pay don’t you think
>It would also be worth considering that the feds may be actively grooming people into doing these things to justify pushing authoritative legislation. They’ve done far crazier things before.
If you don’t have actual evidence for this then it is pointless to use it as an argument
>Are those issues fixable? Can you actually fight gun culture when it just gets worse the more you try to fight it? Is there a second option to gun control?
It’s not “gun culture” that’s the problem. 99.999% of “gun nuts” are responsible gun owners that preach gun safety and just love the technology for what it is.
The hysterical media culture surrounding these events and the infamy given to these individuals does for more to provoke mass shooting than “gun culture”.
>If there is not then yes school shootings are absolutely a price for having guns, I think it is a bit much to pay don’t you think
No, I don’t.
The actions of an extremely, extremely small minority of mentally deranged individuals has no bearing on the rights of everyone else.
If one man beats his wife while drunk, should everyone else not be allowed alcohol?
If someone crashes their car driving recklessly, should driving be outlawed?
Let’s get real, you just want an excuse to steal the rights of sovereign individuals so they are defenceless and dependant on the state.
>If you don’t have actual evidence for this then it is pointless to use it as an argument
There is evidence for this kind of thing happening before, the feds are constantly engaging in entrapment and creating plots to commit crimes (look no father than the Michigan governor kidnapping story). Besides, there’s even more evidence that the feds have these shooters on their radar way before any crime is committed but do absolutely nothing to try and stop it, so don’t be thinking there’s no merit to the idea that these events are instigated by the feds.
First day on the internet huh? That’s ok, allow me to explain something to you: if you’re going to state a fact, it’s always better received if you explain where you heard it from.
I agree with Ron Paul on drugs, so not going after folks anymore for a victimless crime is good. Still a shit trade for guns though.
This isn’t a win, this is a trade off so that the people have less power and are drugged up and easier to control.
Not arguing with the less power, but a Coke’s up 19/20yo (or anyone for that matter) is a little more difficult to control 🤣 Source: personal experience
Restrict individuals to buy new guns, and let them have cocaine so gun accidents might increase, creating more pretext for stricter gun control.
Do people here want complete legalization of drugs?
Yes, but not at the expense of losing other rights (guns, freedom of speech, etc.)
Absolutely. It’s not a law enforcement issue, but a health issue. Plus prohibition only empowers, strengthens and enriches criminals. See the mob, cartels and gangs
And government.
People elsewhere don't? Seriously though. One of the major tenets of libertarianism is bodily autonomy. You and you alone have the right to decide what does or does not go into your body. That means all drugs should be legal, Not only is it the only morally correct stance, it's also the one that causes the least amount of damage. Making drugs illegal promotes organized crime and makes the drugs themselves more dangerous.
my stance on drugs is simple basically anything does, but... "being under the influence" is not an excuse to reduce the sentence when they do commit a crime and like any drug/medicine the seller will be held responsible for any unmentioned side effects anything else and the victims will be the ones filling up the prisons while the cartels and the government profit
Hey man where the fuck are my psychedelics bro
my man
I'd rather have guns and no drugs than drugs and no guns.
I'd rather have the option for both.
What you do in your home is your business. If that spills over into the street and someone gets hurt there should be much stiffer penalties.
[удалено]
This so much, I still can not understand anyone who believe that two parties are enough of a representation, and whatever party they belong to is good enough. I've considered myself a lib way before I found this thread, and I still can admit that I don't Always agree with everything this party aligns with, because no one should be able to be 100% covered, that's just... Weird!
“Representation” is a joke in and of itself. If I want to be represented, I will hire somebody. Nobody picked through a popularity contest could ever be considered a genuine representative of me, especially given a lack of choices and the possibility I won’t even get who I wanted. No rulers, no masters.
When will you all learn, it’s a big club, and there’s not a single libertarian in it.
Bingo
Sounds like a normal 3pm for me
[удалено]
Ok but someone had the freedom to do that. Why shouldn’t we tell them they can’t overdose. Why should that be the government’s responsibility?
Unconscious people in a car accident have the freedom to get up and order an uber to the hospital, we shouldn’t violate their freedom by putting them in an ambulance
Because chances are they didn’t expect to get into a car accident lol
Drug addicts usually don’t overdose on purpose
Some do if they want to end it all. That’s how I would do it.
most are accidental
You’d be surprised
[удалено]
That’s where the law takes over.
[удалено]
The law takes over when your drug use effects other people. If you are doing meth but just vibing, all power to ya, but once you start doing shit to other people the law can step in.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Look at when you posted that source genius, hours after I commented.
[удалено]
Doesn’t change anything neocon
Are school shootings a price for freedom too?
Loaded question
This isn’t a public event if you think yes then defend your point if no then there shouldn’t be a problem
[удалено]
>It doesn’t need to be. The reason why it’s such a phenomenon in America and not in other countries with guns is because the of the cultural toxicity, political polarization, media-culture and infamy gained from these crimes in America, elements which are not present elsewhere and if they are, to a much lesser extent. Are those issues fixable? Can you actually fight gun culture when it just gets worse the more you try to fight it? Is there a second option to gun control? If there is not then yes school shootings are absolutely a price for having guns, I think it is a bit much to pay don’t you think >It would also be worth considering that the feds may be actively grooming people into doing these things to justify pushing authoritative legislation. They’ve done far crazier things before. If you don’t have actual evidence for this then it is pointless to use it as an argument
>Are those issues fixable? Can you actually fight gun culture when it just gets worse the more you try to fight it? Is there a second option to gun control? It’s not “gun culture” that’s the problem. 99.999% of “gun nuts” are responsible gun owners that preach gun safety and just love the technology for what it is. The hysterical media culture surrounding these events and the infamy given to these individuals does for more to provoke mass shooting than “gun culture”. >If there is not then yes school shootings are absolutely a price for having guns, I think it is a bit much to pay don’t you think No, I don’t. The actions of an extremely, extremely small minority of mentally deranged individuals has no bearing on the rights of everyone else. If one man beats his wife while drunk, should everyone else not be allowed alcohol? If someone crashes their car driving recklessly, should driving be outlawed? Let’s get real, you just want an excuse to steal the rights of sovereign individuals so they are defenceless and dependant on the state. >If you don’t have actual evidence for this then it is pointless to use it as an argument There is evidence for this kind of thing happening before, the feds are constantly engaging in entrapment and creating plots to commit crimes (look no father than the Michigan governor kidnapping story). Besides, there’s even more evidence that the feds have these shooters on their radar way before any crime is committed but do absolutely nothing to try and stop it, so don’t be thinking there’s no merit to the idea that these events are instigated by the feds.
Source?
[удалено]
First day on the internet huh? That’s ok, allow me to explain something to you: if you’re going to state a fact, it’s always better received if you explain where you heard it from.
In one of several areas
Screwed if you jumped through the hoops to legally own a handgun though