The Obama Presidency

[Fe 26]

It's really not the same thing.

It is totally the same kind of stuff. Lets impact the many because of the few. The only difference is modern people are scared of death and the idea of a wacko with a machine gun fills them with 'teh feels'

Pot is illegal right now because 50 years ago old white conservatives thought smoking dope made you just as wacko and evil as some nut with a gun. Should pot be illegal because old people are scared of Charles Manson?

[icarusfall]

I'm not going to argue with you since you're missing the crux of the issue.

You can't compare weed and guns.

[YellerDog]

Get smoked

[kedawa]

I thought weed was bad because mexicans.

[Space Pirate Roberts]

What I don't get is why it's okay to have a gun that can kill someone a mile away, but not a grenade that can only harm someone within a dozen yards or so, and can only kill someone much closer. If I want to lob sport grenades in my cornfield, why shouldn't I be allowed to?

Because there isn't a giant lobby fighting for your right to own grenades so they can sell them to you, and let's not give them the idea.

[kedawa]

But I want me some gurnades!

[Fe 26]

I'm not going to argue with you since you're missing the crux of the issue.

You can't compare weed and guns.

not getting the crux of the issue is the point.

People who don't understand guns and are scared of imaginary gun nuts want anti gun legislation.

People that don't understand pot and other drugs and are scared of imaginary drugheads want anti drug legislation.

If you're even kind of informed, you probably don't want one or the other restricted. Or at least, you're not pushing for people to be classified as criminals for owing a little paraphernalia.

[icarusfall]

Like I said before (this is the last time I'm doing this), I'm not against owning guns - just assault weapons.

It's not a binary equation. You seem to be coming from a standpoint of "All regulation is bad" and that's not useful when comparing weed to weapons.

[Fe 26]

Like I said before (this is the last time I'm doing this), I'm not against owning guns - just assault weapons.

Why? 'assault weapon' is a made up and very vague term. Do you mean just guns that Michael Bay uses in movies? Do you mean ones covered in the last assault weapon ban? Why would you be for gun ownership but not assault weapons when the overwhelming number of gun crimes are committed with hand guns and not assault weapons?

I'm sorry, but the opposition's position on this is bizarre. It seams like people want to ban, restrict or limit an idea while ignoring and leaving alone the guns that are used in 99% of gun crime.

Is that suppose to make sense?

You seem to be coming from a standpoint of "All regulation is bad" and that's not useful when comparing weed to weapons.

I'm coming from the stand point that increased legislation because of outliers is stupid. Like banning pot because some pot smokers are bad people when the overwhelming majority of pot smokers are harmless.

[Yoshi]

Does this figure include both legal and illegal owners?

Legal obviously, since none of Washington's pontification would do anything to stop the illegal ones.

How about the owners who are also on drugs or in rehab? Or the gun owners also on welfare etc.

For better or worse, we can't kick people out of their rights for that.

99% of anything is surely to be a lie.

It wasn't a statistic. It was a SWAG. The point is there's a lot more babies than bath water.