Jump to content

Gun Control Irritating Arguments


nivek
 Share

Recommended Posts

I'll open up with this:

 

Fucking oversight at VT applauded the killing of a State Bill keeping concealed carry from legally happening at State schools. I hope that dirty rat bastard sleeps well for the rest of his miserable life.

 

"Death by Legislation..

 

Gun Bill in VA died on 1/31/06.....prevented VA Tech students from

carrying today...

http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/wb/xp-50658

 

Sent to kFL:

 

 

My friend just e-mailed THIS little gem to me.......From January 31, 2006

 

 

31stGun bill gets shot down by panel

HB 1572, which would have allowed handguns on college campuses, died in subcommittee.

By Greg Esposito

381-1675

 

A bill that would have given college students and employees the right

to carry handguns on campus died with nary a shot being fired in the

General Assembly.

 

House Bill 1572 didn't get through the House Committee on Militia,

Police and Public Safety. It died Monday in the subcommittee stage,

the first of several hurdles bills must overcome before becoming laws.

 

The bill was proposed by Del. Todd Gilbert, R-Shenandoah County, on

behalf of the Virginia Citizens Defense League. Gilbert was

unavailable Monday and spokesman Gary Frink would not comment on the

bill's defeat other than to say the issue was dead for this General

Assembly session.

 

Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker was happy to hear the bill was

defeated.

"I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the

General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students,

faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."

 

Del. Dave Nutter, R-Christiansburg, would not comment Monday because

he was not part of the subcommittee that discussed the bill.

 

Most universities in Virginia require students and employees, other

than police, to check their guns with police or campus security upon

entering campus. The legislation was designed to prohibit public

universities from making "rules or regulations limiting or abridging

the ability of a student who possesses a valid concealed handgun

permit ... from lawfully carrying a concealed handgun."

 

The legislation allowed for exceptions for participants in athletic

events, storage of guns in residence halls and military training

programs.

 

Last spring a Virginia Tech student was disciplined for bringing a

handgun to class, despite having a concealed handgun permit. Some gun

owners questioned the university's authority, while the Virginia

Association of Chiefs of Police came out against the presence of guns

on campus.

 

In June, Tech's governing board approved a violence prevention policy

reiterating its ban on students or employees carrying guns and

prohibiting visitors from bringing them into campus facilities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From Firearms Instructor John Farnham:

 

 

16 Apr 07

 

Incident in VA:

 

As details of today's murder spree (no, it not a "tragedy" It's a crime!) in VA slowly trickle out, several facts are not in dispute:

 

(1) The perpetrator carried firearms onto a college campus in flagrant and contemptuous defiance of existing "rules" prohibiting guns on campus. Such rules were obviously a "deterrent" only to those who don't commit crimes anyway.

 

(2) Every innocent person who was shot was, at the time, unarmed and defenseless. There were no armed, good people physically present as murders were being committed. No one in a position to stop these crimes had the ability to confront the perpetrator with lethal force. And, nothing less was, or would have been, effective!

 

(3) Armed police responded aggressively, courageously, and about as fast as they've ever going to. Nonetheless, all murders had already been completed by the time they arrived. They did not get there in time to prevent a single one. They never fired a shot!

 

(4) With all recent, similar incidents, the foregoing has been the pattern. The usual "solutions" are predictably being regurgitated by leftist politicians and media socialists, ranging from airport-like security at the entrance to all educational buildings, to a camera on every corner! No one dares mention the only solution that can work, or has ever worked: good people, armed. To naive grasseaters, such a thing is beyond imagination!

 

Real Americans, however, are not waiting for assorted political gasbags to, once again, make their tired case for a Soviet-style police-state. I just talked with a friend who is a large gun retailer in CO. Today was his busiest, single sales day in several years. People flooded his store and carried away nearly every gun and round of ammunition he had in stock! Americans are weary of hearing about government "security plans." They are putting together their own, personal "security plan!"

 

Our Second Amendment, the original "Homeland Security," is alive and well, except in designated "Criminal Empowerment Zones," like college campuses!

 

/John Farnam

_______________________________________________

Dtiquips mailing list

Dtiquips@clouds.com

Copyright 2007 by DTI, Inc. All rights reserved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 'only criminals will have guns' argument is absurd. It's like saying "If we keep murder illegal, then only criminals will be able to murder!"

 

Rather than allowing campuses to descend into gun warfare, how about not giving lethal weapons to every Tom, Dick and Harry?

 

Anyway, where was the NRA when the Patriot Act was passed? That clearly violated the constitutional rights of US citizens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BurnedOut, no really, don't hold back, please tell us what you really think about the foreign press.

 

Haven't seen that much spittle fly through my computer monitor in a long, long time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I say yes...arm them all equally, it creates a deterrant.

 

Most school shootings take place at jr high and high schools. Should we arm them to?

 

As I mentioned in the other thread, maybe we should just focus on what is causing this phenomena and at the same time let people just go about their lives. Chances of being caught in the cross fire of a shooting spree are less than winning the Powerball and almost as low as being eaten by a shark. We end up causing more problems by trying to protect every aspect of our lives.

 

Hell, when I was a kid I didn't wear a helmet when I rode my bike. It had a ball busting bannana seat and I took it over some rather scary jumps. I, and most kids survived those years with a few bumps and bruises.

 

Today we are ready to wrap society in a security bubble in order to protect against every ridiculous threat that we can imagine. Maybe we should just live our lives. Then the life we lead might actually be a bit more fun and less stressful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This very senario, Self Defence at or on the School grounds was fought for long prior to this rampant murdering. Do not forget anyone, that murder is murder no matter how it is accomplished. Policies were left in place to ensure the murderer had a "Total Victim Zone".

 

Just for anyone who gives a fucks record, AFAIC NRA means "n ot r elevant a nymore", they being one of the better gun control organizations around..

 

Firearm is simply a tool. Seems to me that the subjects in UK have had a dramatic rise in firearms and edged weapns crimes in past few years. Also seems to be that they, the People, have had legislated away almost anything resembling any ability to stand their ground and protect themselves.

 

If someone from the late.great.UK wants to discuss universal disarmarment, we can do that too..

 

kFL

****************

 

http://www.roanoke.com/politics/wb/49915

 

Gun bill targets colleges

A bill being considered in the House of Delegates challenges the authority of public universities to restrict weapons on campus.

By Greg Esposito 381-1675

 

BLACKSBURG -- Seventy-five guns sit in a weapons storage facility at the Virginia Tech police station.

 

The guns are secured inside storage compartments in a locked room slightly larger than a walk-in closet.

 

University policy requires students and employees, other than police, to check their guns there. If they want to take them off campus, they have to sign them out, and a university police officer must retrieve them.

 

Regardless of whatever permits they may have, those students and employees are not allowed to possess guns on campus.

 

Tech's regulations are similar to gun policies at public colleges throughout the state, such as the University of Virginia, Virginia Military Institute and Radford University.

 

But a bill being considered in the state House of Delegates challenges the authority of public universities to create such policies.

 

House Bill 1572, proposed by Del. Todd Gilbert, R-Shenandoah County, would prohibit universities from making "rules or regulations limiting or abridging the ability of a student who possesses a valid concealed handgun permit ... from lawfully carrying a concealed handgun."

 

The legislation makes exceptions for participants in athletic events, storage of guns in residence halls and military training programs.

 

The issue of guns on campus received attention at Tech last spring when a student was disciplined for bringing a handgun to class, despite having a concealed handgun permit.

 

Some gun owners questioned the university's authority, while the Virginia Association of Chiefs of Police came out against the presence of guns on campus.

 

In June, Tech's governing board approved a violence prevention policy that reiterates the ban on students or employees carrying guns and prohibits visitors from bringing guns into campus facilities.

 

Two bills seeking to clarify the issue by giving college governing boards explicit authority to regulate firearms on campus died in committee during last year's General Assembly session.

 

Philip Van Cleave, a Midlothian resident who is president of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, said Wednesday that public universities have no right to tell visitors where they can bring guns. Their authority over students remains a gray area, he said.

 

HB 1572 was proposed on behalf of Van Cleave's organization.

 

"The basic intent is to allow students with concealed weapons permits to be able to carry their gun with them on campus just like they can anywhere else in the state," he said. "You can count the number of exceptions on one hand."

 

But Tech Police Chief Debra Duncan said colleges should be included in those exceptions.

 

"You can't carry a gun on an airplane, you can't carry a gun in a federal building and you shouldn't be able to carry a gun at an institute of learning," she said.

 

Spokesman Gary Frink said Gilbert wouldn't discuss the bill until it moved further along in the legislative process. The bill is in subcommittee and Van Cleave said he didn't expect it to be heard for at least a couple of weeks.

 

While passage of the bill is still a long way off -- with hurdles to clear in subcommittee and full committee before going in front of all delegates and then the Senate -- Van Cleave is confident it could be passed.

 

"I don't believe we're overstepping any bounds. We get into this magical thing where someone steps on school property and the sky parts," he said. "School is just another place."

 

But officials at colleges throughout the state argue that school isn't just another place and guns are anathema to a learning environment that should be free of fear or intimidation.

 

Tech spokesman Larry Hincker labeled it a "guns-in-the-classroom bill."

 

"We do believe this has grave implications," he said. "Why would the General Assembly wish to legislate to make campuses unsafe?"

 

But National Rifle Association head Wayne LaPierre, who was in Roanoke on Wednesday to speak to a Kiwanis Club gathering, pointed out that guns can actually make campuses safer.

 

He cited the fatal shootings at the Appalachian School of Law in which several armed students subdued the gunman.

 

Van Cleave pointed out potential safety problems facing women going to night classes.

 

"You never know when evil will pop up," he said.

 

Van Cleave said his group has heard from several students who want the right to carry guns on campus.

 

Stephanie Harmon, president of the Radford University Student Government Association, said she would bring the topic up at a student senate meeting Monday before the student government took an official stance on the bill.

 

But she opposes it.

 

"It's not that I'm opposed to gun rights, it's just not necessary," she said. "It's taking an increased risk of something happening when you allow a gun in the classroom."

 

Staff writer Laurence Hammack contributed to this story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also think really hard on this one folks.. "When" does a "Citizen", what age, obtain and get to be allowed to use those Rights enumerated in the uS Constitution?

 

As far as I know there is *no* age of assumption given. I'd prefer in a shooting situation at Beastie's SkuLLe that he be armed with the handgun of his choice, carry properly concealed and able to be use with skill..

 

Sure prefer pissing off a bunch of nancies than having my kid and others dead in a fucking pine box because some fool with a tool in his or her hand had a bad day..

 

kFL

 

 

2ufy78x.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do these pathetic lowlifes who are so insecure they cannot do anything, including fucking DIE by themselves ever walk into a police station for their guns out blaze of glory suicide?

 

NO.

 

Do they ever bust into an indoor shooting range hoping to off a few unsuspecting patrons?

 

NO.

 

They go to schools so they can kill unarmed innocents before offing themselves.

 

Isn't it amazing how much self-preservation these suicidal toilet scums have? Because they want to go out entirely on their own terms and want to ensure their last inadequate acts on this earth are completely under their own control, deciding who will live and who will die.

 

And any place that is designated a NO-GUN zone may as well have a target painted on it for these inadequate fuckers who want their blaze of glory untainted by equal or superior resistance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sometimes unexpected cultural differences open like a huge chasm.

 

Tomorrow I take my eldest son back to university and momentarily, in the wake of these shootings as I've imagined myself into the shoes of a grieving parent, I have not wanted to let him go ... just in case.

 

but of course he is at far more risk from hamburgers and road accidents and meningitus than from a student killing gunman.

 

The importance the majority in America place on their right to bear arms is not something I can even remotely understand, it is simply such an alien concept to me. I can see that this topic raises strong opinions. The closest I can get to something like understanding how this is viewed is this - to imagine how I would feel if the UK were to adopt the american approach to gun ownership . I would be as passionately opposed to the introduction of such a 'right' in the UK as Nivek would be to the removal of the same in the USA. (I feel pretty strongly about it!)

 

So here we have two parents, one reassured by the idea of his son carrying a concealed weapon with which to defend himself, one parent filled with horror at the idea of her son attending lectures in which all or any of the students could be armed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So here we have two parents, one reassured by the idea of his son carrying a concealed weapon with which to defend himself, one parent filled with horror at the idea of her son attending lectures in which all or any of the students could be armed.

What you also need to consider, Alice, is that not all of those students will even want to carry a firearm, and of those who do it is unlikely that any of them would do so with the intent to hurt anyone, ever. The whole idea is the right to defend oneself. This tragic event illustrates in spades the truth that if you have a gun to defend yourself, at least you have a chance. An unarmed student against an armed nutjob has no chance at all.

 

Of course there will be talk again in the US of banning private use of firearms. And those who reason will know that at the very moment you "ban" anything, you create a black market for it. Robbie posted what I think to be a completely ignorant post earlier, saying that that the "only criminals will have guns" argument is absurd. Actually, that is absurd in itself, because the argument is true. Those who have an intent to use a gun to commit a crime will be able to obtain said gun, whether it is banned or not. And if Robbie from the UK thinks he is safe, he should think again. Those who want to commit gun related crimes will do so, and the only thing that a gun ban does is criminalize otherwise good, law-abiding people who only want to defend themselves.

 

There is no perfect answer to the issue. But a draconian kneejerk reaction to a tragedy like this should be examined thoroughly before it's accepted by anyone. To do anything less is to invite those "unintended consequences" with the potential to be even worse.

 

And Robbie also suggests that allowing college students the right to defend themselves would result in some kind of warfare. Warfare? Is there "warfare" going on anywhere in the US where people have the right to bear arms? That is a ridiculous statement.

 

I was taught how to safely use guns starting at the age of seven. I am a pretty fair marksman with rifle, shotgun and pistol, and admittedly, my wife might be even a bit better than I at it. But neither of us would ever, ever, shoot at any living thing that wasn't an obvious lethal threat. THAT is what the second amendment is about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

additional....if you look at the number of people killed by guns and the number of people killed by other kinds of deaths excluding natural causes, you will find far more people are killed by automobile and other forms of accidents. Should we ban cars? ....ah, there are some dingbats who might say yes but they are the flakeyones in my book, but as for anyone else who has 2 brian cells to rub together...think about it.

There another use for guns other than

 

1)spitting leaden death

2) being a high tech club when you've use all the bullets in point 1

 

 

IF they do I'd be interested... A society can operate wuth out guns but not cars... but then it depends which makes one feels one's prick is lager than it really is... a domestically produced car or domestically produced gun to tinker with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Europe is blaming Charlton Heston and the anti-gun control groups of the 80s for this shooting.

Link Here

 

Robbobrob,

 

Thanks for those links. Now everyone, here is my comments to the foreign press. I DON'T GIVE A FUCK WHAT THE FOREIGN PRESS THINKS. I NEVER ASKED FOR THEIR OPINION OR APPROVAL. QUITE FRANKLY THEY CAN KISS MY ASS IF THEY DON'T APPROVE OF MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. IT IS THE SECOND AMENDMENT THAT PROTECTS ALL OTHER RIGHTS IN THIS COUNTRY. WITHOUT IT THEY ARE AS WORTLESS AS THE PAPER IT WAS WRITTEN ON. ANYONE WANTS TO TAKE MY RIGHTS FROM ME HAS BETTER UNDERSTAND, I TAKE THE SECOND AMENDMENT VERY SERIOUSLY...GET THE HINT FOLKS! I WOULD MUCH RATHER LIVE IN A SLIGHTLY MORE DANGEROUS OR RISKY LAND WHERE YOU HAVE SUCH RIGHTS THAN TO HAVE THOSE RIGHTS RESTRICTED IN THE NAME OF SAFETY. IT IS NOT THE GUNS THAT KILL ANYONE, A GUN IS SIMPLY A DEVISE MADE OUT OF METAL AND SOME PLASTIC WITH A METAL OBJECT CONTAINING LEAD AND SOME INCINDIARY POWDER WITH EXPLOSIVE CAPABLITY. LEFT ALONE, IT IS HARMLESS. IT TAKES A PERSON TO USE IT. ANYONE CAN USE IT, A SANE PERSON WITH A GUN COULD HAVE PREVENTED SUCH A BIG TRAGEDY HAD THE "CRIMINAL EMPOWERMENT ZONE," AKA THE "GUN FREE COLLEGE CAMPUS" NOT BEEN IN PLACE. SO, TO YOU FOREIGN PRESS, YOU CAN KISS MY ASS, I CHOOSE TO KEEP MY RIGHTS AND DEFEND IT WITH THE SECOND AMENDMENT!!!!

 

and caps make is so much less a rant... it would have looked better if you'd done the letters in different colours to really emphasise how passionately you hold this article of faith... :wicked:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So here we have two parents, one reassured by the idea of his son carrying a concealed weapon with which to defend himself, one parent filled with horror at the idea of her son attending lectures in which all or any of the students could be armed.

What you also need to consider, Alice, is that not all of those students will even want to carry a firearm, and of those who do it is unlikely that any of them would do so with the intent to hurt anyone, ever. The whole idea is the right to defend oneself. This tragic event illustrates in spades the truth that if you have a gun to defend yourself, at least you have a chance. An unarmed student against an armed nutjob has no chance at all.

 

Of course there will be talk again in the US of banning private use of firearms. And those who reason will know that at the very moment you "ban" anything, you create a black market for it. Robbie posted what I think to be a completely ignorant post earlier, saying that that the "only criminals will have guns" argument is absurd. Actually, that is absurd in itself, because the argument is true. Those who have an intent to use a gun to commit a crime will be able to obtain said gun, whether it is banned or not. And if Robbie from the UK thinks he is safe, he should think again. Those who want to commit gun related crimes will do so, and the only thing that a gun ban does is criminalize otherwise good, law-abiding people who only want to defend themselves.

 

There is no perfect answer to the issue. But a draconian kneejerk reaction to a tragedy like this should be examined thoroughly before it's accepted by anyone. To do anything less is to invite those "unintended consequences" with the potential to be even worse.

 

And Robbie also suggests that allowing college students the right to defend themselves would result in some kind of warfare. Warfare? Is there "warfare" going on anywhere in the US where people have the right to bear arms? That is a ridiculous statement.

 

I was taught how to safely use guns starting at the age of seven. I am a pretty fair marksman with rifle, shotgun and pistol, and admittedly, my wife might be even a bit better than I at it. But neither of us would ever, ever, shoot at any living thing that wasn't an obvious lethal threat. THAT is what the second amendment is about.

 

Why does the US prohibit hard drugs?

 

the prohibition just creates a black market for it, and supports much gun crime (both in the US and the UK) It seems strange that a country that prides itself on freedoms goes to such lengths to stop people killing themselves... after all it's their Freedoms you're impinging on...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why does the US prohibit hard drugs?

 

the prohibition just creates a black market for it, and supports much gun crime (both in the US and the UK) It seems strange that a country that prides itself on freedoms goes to such lengths to stop people killing themselves... after all it's their Freedoms you're impinging on...

 

I have no arguement what so ever with you on that one....

Then there's the age of consent... surely maturity is an individual thing, that cannot be legislated by any Governement, local or Federal... just extending the logic of rights and liberties...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why does the US prohibit hard drugs?

Greetings, Grandpa...

(Always a pleasure to respond to posters in the UK, the land of my ancestry, my forebears having come to these colonies in the year of our lard 1732.)

 

The origin of laws banning "hard" drugs in the US is complex, like everything else. "Legal" intoxicants like alcohol and tobacco, of course were prevelant from our country's origins. But those dreaded "hard" drugs, like opium and its derivatives, and cocaine (can you say, "Coca-Cola" and "Pepsi") were a bit different. These horrors, prior to the Harrison Narcotics act, originated from cultures like the "heathen Chinee" back in the turn of the last century. They weren't "American" intoxicants, they were "foreign". In the halcyon days of the "roaring 20's", these were an invasion of what was otherwise a purely homegrown "American" turf by "foreigners". Add to that the spirit of the time, that intoxication by anything was against the laws of our beloved lard, and you've got the ingredients for the incentive to "ban". It didn't work, of course, anymore than Prohibition did, and it still doesn't. But in the modern age, it did create an industry...the DEA and its organs.

 

Just me humble thoughts, may it please ye.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why does the US prohibit hard drugs?

 

the prohibition just creates a black market for it, and supports much gun crime (both in the US and the UK) It seems strange that a country that prides itself on freedoms goes to such lengths to stop people killing themselves... after all it's their Freedoms you're impinging on...

 

I have no arguement what so ever with you on that one....

Then there's the age of consent... surely maturity is an individual thing, that cannot be legislated by any Governement, local or Federal... just extending the logic of rights and liberties...

 

GP,Your tongue & Cheek comments not withstanding.

 

There is only a prohibition on Some hard drugs. The drug war in the US of A is a war on Some drugs not all. Last I knew oxycontin for example is an extremely hard drug with an extremely high risk of both tolerance and addiction. It is such a hard drug in fact that many pharmacies will no longer carry it due its robbery rates. It is not prohibited, and can be obtained legally, although there is a high demand for it on the black market as well. Anyone can go to a Dr and get scripts for any ailment If the Dr wont give you a script you can shop for another Dr who will. People do this, take the windbag Rush for example. Watch TV here for a few days no matter the channel they advertise taking drugs for something. A drug for everything from Depression, to allergies, to sex drive, to diet, to pain, to VD,.. there is a never ending list. Pop their magic pill it will cure any ailment is their claim.

 

Parents are legally responsible for children until the age of 18, then you are considered an adult unless it's to buy alcohol which I disagree with personally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why does the US prohibit hard drugs?

Greetings, Grandpa...

(Always a pleasure to respond to posters in the UK, the land of my ancestry, my forebears having come to these colonies in the year of our lard 1732.)

 

The origin of laws banning "hard" drugs in the US is complex, like everything else. "Legal" intoxicants like alcohol and tobacco, of course were prevelant from our country's origins. But those dreaded "hard" drugs, like opium and its derivatives, and cocaine (can you say, "Coca-Cola" and "Pepsi") were a bit different. These horrors, prior to the Harrison Narcotics act, originated from cultures like the "heathen Chinee" back in the turn of the last century. They weren't "American" intoxicants, they were "foreign". In the halcyon days of the "roaring 20's", these were an invasion of what was otherwise a purely homegrown "American" turf by "foreigners". Add to that the spirit of the time, that intoxication by anything was against the laws of our beloved lard, and you've got the ingredients for the incentive to "ban". It didn't work, of course, anymore than Prohibition did, and it still doesn't. But in the modern age, it did create an industry...the DEA and its organs.

 

Just me humble thoughts, may it please ye.

Liquor, Baccy and Hemp... Old George liked his spliff... but that was prohibited to allow cotton production.

 

But still... why do you (collectively, here and hereafter) allow Govt to impinge on your liberties like that? Looking over the macho bullshit posturing over guns, I'm surprised (not really); libertarian posturing by the terminally immature. One expected a little more native intelligence than that here, but as I said elsewhere, it seems everyone has articles of faith and the bones of saints to fall back on... even if it's politics rather than religion... the fervour exhibited here and elsewhere proves that a lot of your Christian critics are right, even though they're fence post dumb. One of the great things about the politico-religious meme... it's like a bloody parasite... it blends in so well you think it's part of you...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why does the US prohibit hard drugs?

 

the prohibition just creates a black market for it, and supports much gun crime (both in the US and the UK) It seems strange that a country that prides itself on freedoms goes to such lengths to stop people killing themselves... after all it's their Freedoms you're impinging on...

 

I have no arguement what so ever with you on that one....

Then there's the age of consent... surely maturity is an individual thing, that cannot be legislated by any Governement, local or Federal... just extending the logic of rights and liberties...

 

GP,Your tongue & Cheek comments not withstanding.

 

There is only a prohibition on Some hard drugs. The drug war in the US of A is a war on Some drugs not all. Last I knew oxycontin for example is an extremely hard drug with an extremely high risk of both tolerance and addiction. It is such a hard drug in fact that many pharmacies will no longer carry it due its robbery rates. It is not prohibited, and can be obtained legally, although there is a high demand for it on the black market as well. Anyone can go to a Dr and get scripts for any ailment If the Dr wont give you a script you can shop for another Dr who will. People do this, take the windbag Rush for example. Watch TV here for a few days no matter the channel they advertise taking drugs for something. A drug for everything from Depression, to allergies, to sex drive, to diet, to pain, to VD,.. there is a never ending list. Pop their magic pill it will cure any ailment is their claim.

 

Parents are legally responsible for children until the age of 18, then you are considered an adult unless it's to buy alcohol which I disagree with personally.

They need to be on script? PAH! More nannying... let go free... sell ovcer the counter with purchase tax... the drug lobby would be happy and the liberties of the US expanded... Farmers could also move in to cocoa and opium crops, not to mention hemp. Placed onthe free market, the economy would bloom, and crime would drop... Terrorism would lose one of its primary currencies to boot... win win and you get more liberties...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Parents are legally responsible for children until the age of 18, then you are considered an adult unless it's to buy alcohol which I disagree with personally."

 

Why are they responsible legally? As I said, surely its down to the individual... and is that country wide or just where you live?

 

Hell, over here in the Soviet UK we can throw our kids on the street at 16... and you claim you have 'rights' feh!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But still... why do you (collectively, here and hereafter) allow Govt to impinge on your liberties like that? Looking over the macho bullshit posturing over guns, I'm surprised (not really); libertarian posturing by the terminally immature. One expected a little more native intelligence than that here, but as I said elsewhere, it seems everyone has articles of faith and the bones of saints to fall back on... even if it's politics rather than religion... the fervour exhibited here and elsewhere proves that a lot of your Christian critics are right, even though they're fence post dumb. One of the great things about the politico-religious meme... it's like a bloody parasite... it blends in so well you think it's part of you...

I hope you'll be understanding if I seem stupid to you, Grandpa, but...what the bloody hell are you talking about?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.