You Don't Need That

[SamSpade]

Ann must have taken a page from my book - I've been saying this one a long time.

Ann Coulter - Official Home Page

The whole - "you don't need that (gun)(gun magazine)" argument is as pointless as any other. It only means this - I don't think you should have that, and I'm going to insist you don't have it.

What's not at all inconsistent is, they reverse roles when it is something they think people SHOULD be able to have, or should be able to do. Like public television and federally funded abortions.

If you want to own something, or do something, and it in no way harms anyone else - no one should be able to say "you don't need that" as their argument.

You don't need beer or cigarettes - should the government ban them, too?

 

[GURPS]

You Did Not Build THAT .....

 

[FreedomFan]

You don't need beer or cigarettes - should the government ban them, too?

The argument seems to work pretty well across broad swaths of America with respect to the immoral war on drugs.

Mind you, I don't think the government should do anything about about the gun "problem". But I don't think they ought to be involved in what humans who have freewill put into their bodies either.

The problem is that once we as society tacitly or overtly admit that we don't mind if the government protects the individual against his own bad decisions, such as ingesting whatever substance he wishes, how can we mount any serious objection from the government desiring to protect us from whatever they decide we need protecting from?

But phony Ann Coulter supports the war on drugs. She's a disingenuous shill.

 

[Toxick]

The whole - "you don't need that (gun)(gun magazine)" argument is as pointless as any other. It only means this - I don't think you should have that, and I'm going to insist you don't have it.

Truer words were never spoken, and I believe that of all the talking points that the left has come up with to push their gun-control agenda, this one is the most condescending and irritating.

Who are these people to tell me what I need and what I don't need? They don't know me. They don't know what kind of environment I was brought up in, and what kind of environment I'm in now. They don't know what kind of dangers run up and down my streets every day. Whether animal, human or otherwise. And even if they did know, they still have no business telling me what I need. I'm a responsible adult and I'm perfectly capable of deciding what I need.

And anyone who thinks they know what I need or don't need better than I do, I cordially invite you to jump off the tallest structure you can find.

 

[SamSpade]

The argument seems to work pretty well across broad swaths of America with respect to the immoral war on drugs.

Generally, in principle - I agree with this. However....

*Usually* when people get up and proclaim that they want to decriminalize or legalize drugs, they are playing a bait and switch - they REALLY mean, they want to be able to smoke dope at home without repercussions. And I more or less agree with that.

Heroin and more dangerous drugs - no, I don't think people should have access to that anymore than they should have access to plutonium or anthrax.

I'm not going to use they "you don't need that argument" for that - I have personal, close association with the damages of heroin to know if it were legal, it would do even more damage to loved ones. You want to destroy YOURSELF with drugs? Knock yourself out. But our legal system still has a very light hand when your reckless behavior endangers or destroys the lives of others.

But for guns - the PURPOSE of the second amendment has been stated very clearly, numerous times. It is to protect ourselves from an tyrannical government. It is yet another check on the reach of government.

You've made the correct observation - which I've stated before here - that as people relinquish responsibility over their own lives to the government, they shouldn't be surprised when the government steps in tells them how they should live them. I just pray that somehow people will wake up and reverse this trend before the door on the gilded cage slams shut.

 

[FreedomFan]

I don't understand what you mean by bait and switch. If someone gets high or drunk or whatever and gets in a car and injures someone else, then that's a tort against another. That's already against the law, and can be dealt with. I don't know a single person who is for the lifting of drug prohibition that claims to be for causing harm to another.

I too have seen the damage heroin and opiates, etc. can cause. Enough so that I can say I'd never want to take those types of drugs.

But I'd no more stand by the violent force of government to support telling someone else they can't any more than I'd stand by the violent force of government saying you MUST take them -- or do something (like buy healthcare, etc.).

You've made the correct observation - which I've stated before here - that as people relinquish responsibility over their own lives to the government, they shouldn't be surprised when the government steps in tells them how they should live them.

But you seem to be suggesting that there are some things that are so egregiously bad for you that you're willing to set that principle aside momentarily. What percentage of Americans need to feel a certain way before it's reasonable to abridge rights? A very close friend of mine was shot by someone else who used a gun to kill him. But I'd no more wave my hands and support any sort of gun control because of that incident than I would support drug prohibition if someone I knew had died of a heroin overdose.

It's true there is a 2nd amendment which specifically deals with guns. But life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are God-given rights that we hold to be self-evident. Liberty means the right to be as stupid as we want to be and do whatever harm to our bodies we want.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Generally, in principle - I agree with this. However....

*Usually* when people get up and proclaim that they want to decriminalize or legalize drugs, they are playing a bait and switch - they REALLY mean, they want to be able to smoke dope at home without repercussions. And I more or less agree with that.

Heroin and more dangerous drugs - no, I don't think people should have access to that anymore than they should have access to plutonium or anthrax.

I'm not going to use they "you don't need that argument" for that - I have personal, close association with the damages of heroin to know if it were legal, it would do even more damage to loved ones. You want to destroy YOURSELF with drugs? Knock yourself out. But our legal system still has a very light hand when your reckless behavior endangers or destroys the lives of others.

But for guns - the PURPOSE of the second amendment has been stated very clearly, numerous times. It is to protect ourselves from an tyrannical government. It is yet another check on the reach of government.

You've made the correct observation - which I've stated before here - that as people relinquish responsibility over their own lives to the government, they shouldn't be surprised when the government steps in tells them how they should live them. I just pray that somehow people will wake up and reverse this trend before the door on the gilded cage slams shut.

At what point do we stop legislating based on what someone might do?

We all agree it's wrong to make up more gun laws for law abiding citizens because of what someone might do with one.

Why is it any different that we legislated drugs based on what someone might do while on them?

Sure they are bad for you, but, IMO, doing the drugs isn't a crime. Robbery is a crime, DUI is a crime, etc, and we should prosecuting folks based on the crime they commit rather than if they have something in a baggie. If folks have addiction issues, it should be a medical issue with focus on rehabilitation, not incarceration.

 

[bcp]

. If folks have addiction issues, it should be a medical issue with focus on rehabilitation, not incarceration, Paid for by the one addicted and not in anyway reflected on the cost of insurance or taxes being passed off on the non addicted population..

I know, lets make people that use drugs carry special insurance to cover things like accidents while high, or crime while high, or treatment for addictions.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

I know, lets make people that use drugs carry special insurance to cover things like accidents while high, or crime while high, or treatment for addictions.

Yea, and at the same time argue that gun owners don't need special insurance cards to own guns!

 

[thurley42]

Yea, and at the same time argue that gun owners don't need special insurance cards to own guns!

or use alcohol....tobacco...etc