yjacket

I'm not shunning my child, I'm telling him he can't bring his behavior into my house; big difference. If he wants to have a partner, his choice. I won't tell him how to live is life outside of the confines of my house. When I'm at Christmas dinner, I don't particularly care to hear John telling Mike "pass the peas, honey". I don't particularly care to have John and Mike sleeping together in one of my bedrooms. I don't particularly care to see John with his arm around Mike sitting on a couch together. I don't particularly care to see 2 homosexuals engaging in heterosexual behavior. No there is no exception to the rule. I don't watch TV shows or movies that show that type of behavior, to me it is repulsive. Watching 2 guys hug and kiss . . . I just don't need to see that in my life. Now if John wants to bring Mike into my house and they don't exhibit any behavior that I find repulsive I might let them in; but the moment that it reaches a level that I find repulsive their are gone. However anyone else wants to deal with it is totally fine with me; if pam feels comfortable around them great, it doesn't bother me in the least. Someone might call me a "homophobe" or some junk like that; when I bet dollars to donuts I'm the first one in line to defend their individual rights. Sorry pam I'm breaking your marriage rule :-(, but I think the government should stay out of marriage and if John and Mike want to get some pastor to declare them man and man, great go for it. I really don't care. I think people should be able to destroy their own life however they please (do drugs, engage in risky behavior, smoke, drink, get drunk, etc.), but for me and my house-it ain't happening.

I'm late, but I believe it is completely possible to love without approving or condoning. Hopefully what I say isn't taken the wrong way; but I believe parents in today's society have become extremely soft and parenting has turned into what does a parent need to do to make their children feel good rather than teaching them how to be independent individuals. Having said that, when someone is in my house they abide by my rules. I have lots of rules in my house, I won't allow smokers inside my house, toys are picked up, no swearing, no drinking, etc. My rules don't have anything to do with love, they are just simply a reflection of the type of life that I choose to live. While someone is a guest in my house, I expect them to abide by those rules. When someone is outside my house, I have no control over their behavior. The tactics that I use in order to enforce my rules change as my children grow and the amount of freedom that they have to make their own choices increase within the sandbox that I establish for them. You let them make the mistakes you want them to make. Eventually, when they are old enough to be independent they go off and make their own house with their own rules. Hopefully, I have taught them well enough that they make good decisions, but I'm sure they will make plenty of decisions I will not agree with-however that is their business. If a child of mine chooses a lifestyle that I firmly believe is wrong and will not bring them happiness, I'm sure as junk not going to be wishing them well. I wish you all the happiness smoking 10 packs a cigarettes a day!! ?? That makes no sense to me. I would express my sadness in their decision to choose a lifestyle that in my opinion will not bring happiness. More specifically with 2 homosexuals, they will never have the experience of creating a child together. The birth of my children are some of my most precious memories-no matter the science or technology that experience will not happen for them. But it is ultimately their decision, they have to live with the consequences of their choices and I will always love them, regardless. However, if one of my children chooses a deviant path, while they are in my house they will live by my rules. I wouldn't allow someone to smoke in my house and I wouldn't allow someone's homosexual partner in my house and I'm not going to be chatty with the partner. Sure I'll talk to my kid on the phone, invite him in for Christmas etc but no partner. If he doesn't like it-tough. Those are just the rules; love doesn't have anything to do with it.

It takes 2 to tango. My fault also, my apologies as well.

And a law against drugs did a lot of good to prevent him from forming a cocaine habit . . . . Well one could say if he is that addicted to steal, at 10 cents a pop he'll be doing so much of it he'll end up killing himself long before he starts seriously harming other people. ?? I take cocaine and I immediately become insane. What you are doing is equating cocaine use to stealing which is not the case. I'm sure you've heard of Wall Street and stories of cocaine. Wall Street Cocaine Stories - Business Insider If cocaine use = breaking into someone's home there would be a lot of break-ins on Wall Street; but there isn't. Why? Because they have sufficient money to fuel their addiction. Or basically, if someone uses cocaine = they will steal; when it is really someone who is seriously addicted to cocaine might steal. Yes it is horrible, it is bad, but people do a lot of things that are horrible, bad to themselves. Again confusing issues. Who own the roads? Do you own them, no, the government owns them. Regardless of my personal ideas on speeding tickets as long as the government owns the roads it can do whatever it pleases with them. Whether the government should own it is another question, but not germane to this discussion. Do you own your body or does the government own your body? Or more to the point because government is a collection of other human beings, do you own someone else's physical body? Because that is what you are saying with drug laws, we as a society deem that if you put x into your body it is punishable by jail. Ownership of something means you can sell it, you can destroy it, you can do whatever you want with it as long as you don't violate someone else's rights in the process. And a speeding fine is vastly different than going to jail. I can get as many speeding tickets as I want and as long as I pay the fine I won't go to jail. Eventually my license will get revoked and if I drive without one on government roads I will then go to jail . . . but again government owns the road so they make the rules. I get stopped with cocaine, I go to jail. Fine != jail. Absolutely, there is a huge difference. However, it is all part of the same problem. Drug Enforcement Administration, what do they do enforce drug laws. When you create drug laws, you have to have an industry build up to enforce the laws and you relinquish any type of real ability for the legislature to dictate how to implement the laws without more laws and then more laws on how to implement the implementation . . . The underlying current is all this discussion is that if we didn't have laws against drug usage everybody would be doing it (okay not everybody, but it would be out of control). And it is so completely dangerous that one touch will destroy everything. I like that line to tell my kids, but the reality of it is far different and we can't have laws based upon fear upon what might happen. I served my mission in Northern Argentina, at the time cocaine was completely legal in the northern provinces. Not once in 2 years did I ever hear about or worry about assault or random robbery from some drug crazed person. A few times people stole from their relatives to fuel their addiction, but that is hardly different than what currently happens here with all the manpower, laws, and resources directed at drugs. I met many who chewed coca leaves (it leaves a disgusting green junk all over their lips). They were in need of help. Some people chewed it and did just fine, some were addicted and needed help, but having drugs legal didn't lead to chaos. I completely disagree, human beings do learn to self-regulate. I don't drink soda, why because it destroys your teeth, not because there is a law against it. Cocaine isn't a new substance: Cocaine in your brain Look at the pictures, it was getting sold in the 1880s, I've never read any history about massive drug problems like we have today in the 1880s. Members of the church don't drink alcohol, not because there is a law, but because we chose not to. Laws are not nor should be designed to prevent human behavior, laws are designed to affix punishment and enact justice. This whole concept is extremely relevant to gun laws. It is the exact same type of thinking. If we don't have laws against semi-automatic weapons, or against 10-15 more bullets in a clip, mass chaos will result because people will be shooting each other up. If we don't have laws against drug usage, mass chaos will result because little children will use drugs and everyone will be shooting themselves up.

I haven't read that before; thank you. One of the best short pieces I've read on the subject. 2 thumbs up; it is now bookmarked.

I agree, this is getting pointless. Laws do not exist to cure a problem that is the issue that I am trying to explain. Laws exist to deprive someone of life, liberty, property. Laws cannot, do not and will not solve all of societies problems. Education, reasoning, and logic solve societal problems. You believe it is morally just, right, and valid to put someone in jail for smoking a joint! That logic tells me that you believe if you got 10 people together in a city and 6/10 said we are going to pass a law that everyone must exercise 30 min. a day that it would be fine. There is no underlying fundamental basis on what should or shouldn't be law. That basis of what should or shouldn't be law ends up being whatever the majority decides is right and whatever behavior it deems must be eradicated. And that is an extremely dangerous proposition that leads to tyranny of the majority. My reasoning is that laws should be based on natural law; i.e. if someone smokes a joint and robs someone to get money to do so they should go to jail, the reason why is to a large degree irrelevant. They robbed someone. One cannot eliminate or create laws to eliminate all the reasons or excuses someone has for robbing someone, one can only write a law punishing the actual act that violated natural law. ?? I just did say they were and are different. In one case it is an inherently violent act, the other is not an inherently violent act. No I was trying to refute your argument that if I understand you, we have laws against drugs not because they violate natural rights, but because they represent a behavior that we find reprehensible. I was trying to say that if you want to cure the behavior there are better ways of curing it than having a law. Again comparing drug use to murder or rape is out there. One is a violent act the other is not. I was trying to say that using laws to regulate non-violent behavior can and does lead to a whole host of violent acts. I don't know, a lawless regime didn't murder millions of people. I'm way more afraid of the state, like Stalin, Hitler, etc vs. a lawless society. Then what was your entire point? I never claimed to be an expert, I said I've read a lot and I've researched a lot. I understand the economics of prohibition very well. That prohibition works?? except that it really doesn't . . . Actually yeah, there are a lot of studies and research into rape individuals and understanding why they do what they do. Difference between acts that violate life, liberty, property and those that don't. Otherwise, we get laws like NYC ban on sugar drinks. ?? The powder keg was there, and that was the spark. Yes it was highly complex, but that was the spark that lit it. If that didn't happen does another spark light it, maybe? maybe not? we'll never know.

Roger. I did not originally bring drugs into the conversation. I mentioned the economics of prohibition and someone else piped in about drugs. I completely agree that on a sliding scale, prohibition on drugs is 4-5, prohibition on guns is a 10. The economics behind them are the exact same, level of importance is completely different. Oh, I don't claim (and if someone got the impression that I did, I apologize) that lifting the ban would eliminate all the problems with drugs, just like alcohol there are a whole host of problems with its use. My premise is that specifically with drugs it causes way, way more problems that it solves, from over-crowding jails, to the massive amount of local, state, federal money spent at the problem, to gangs, to gang-violence, to border violence, to the cartels, etc. Drug usage is in general more prevalent at the lower incomes and lower education demographics. Or I should say those who are penalized and caught are more likely in those demographics. And most of it has to do with cost and the high price of drugs that makes it very profitable for cartels. And most silly bans that try to protect people from themselves work this way.

That is horrible, however, you are conflating multiple issues. 1st off, since they were married it's a little difficult to fully understand who was stealing what, and I won't presume to understand everything. Of course, I can make an extremely valid case that had cocaine been legal he wouldn't have had to sell off everything because it would have been cheap. There are shared resources in a marriage. This issue is no different than a spend-thrift wife who blows through thousands of dollars a month. The act of spending the money, the theft is the act which is prosecutable. The act of killing someone can be prosecuted. The act of abusing is violence and is prosecutable. Did the drugs "make" him do it, or was he already a severely damaged individual who needed a lot of help and used drugs as an escape. Natural Laws are extremely relevant because there are a litany of personal behaviors and personal decisions that can cause harmful effects. Natural Law states that you can only prosecute and have laws for those things that actually cause harm. You can't put someone in jail because you think they "might" kill someone, you put them in jail because they killed someone. This goes back to innocent until proven guilty. The basis of our system assumes that guilty people will go free, but it is better than some guilty go free rather than the innocent be prosecuted. The basis is that it is only when a behavior violates someone life, liberty, property should it be prosecuted. We shouldn't put people in jail for what they might do. I'll relate my own ancedote. I home taught a family who's husband had recently been busted 3rd time for MJ. 3 strikes your out the guy received 5 years in jail. He had early teen children. Wife was completely devastated. Not only was she upset about her husband doing drugs, but she was now a single mom raising 3 kids as they were going through their formative years. Her husband sits in jail with individuals who'd committed violent acts. For the rest of his life, he is labeled a felon and his ability to provide is severely hampered. The moment in my life I realized I'd been very wrong about drugs. The guy needed help not jail time.

Obviously we have a failure to communicate here . . . No that was not my premise. You claimed "No, the premise being that drug usage destroys society, and society must protect itself." I said I agree that drug usage destroys individuals but that prohibition rather than helping cure the problem makes the problem worse and I've given plenty of articles as to why in this particular problem drug prohibition does not work and it makes things much, much worse. Please see my response above as to why you have continually jumped the shark on this one, i.e. I never said or claimed that murder should be legal nor should extortion. And I never said that having a black market for something is a reason for something to not exist. There is an underlying theme that basically laws are what make people civilized and without xyz law what would we ever do it would descend into chaos and that is total crap. People are civilized because they realize it is better to peaceable interact with one another rather than kill each other. Totalitarian regimes have plenty of laws, but they are hardly civilized. Again, ?? I really do not follow. This is the line: You: No, the premise being that drug usage destroys society, and society must protect itself. Me: Of course drug use harms individuals and society, but what is the best way to cure the disease, wave a magical wand and proclaim from henceforth there shall be no more of xyz!! You: Then we should do away with laws prohibiting rape, extortion, and jaywalking, because that is clearly not the best way of curing the disease. Me: This is an example of a logical fallacy and extremely poor actual debating. Because I said we shouldn't have prohibition= I said we shouldn't have laws prohibiting the above. Rape laws and murder laws don't protect or prevent rape and murder, just like drug laws can't prevent or protect from drug usage. In cases of rape and murder those are acts of violence and a deprivation of life, liberty, property, in the other case of drug usage it is not an act of violence, i.e. it is illogical to compare acts of violence to acts that are not violent. See above, apples to oranges. Anecdotal evidence can sometimes be good, but a lot of times leads to incorrect assumptions and results. You are right, my bad. Okay, books I've read or reading: Man, Economy, State with Power and the State Human Action Road to Serfdom Conceived in Liberty Ethics of Liberty The Law Foundation of Morality Economic Thought before Adam Smith The Merchants of Death Vampire Economy The Costs of War Americas Pyrrhic Victories, Principle of Economics Forty Centuries of Wage and Price Controls As We Go Marching None Dare Call it Treason The Creature from Jekyll Island When Money Dies Fiat Money Inflation in France That's just what I can find in 5 mins. of pdfs on my computer; that doesn't include the litany of books on tapes I've listened to on topics ranging from Roman Emperors, to The Constitution to Psychology, etc and the litany of books on my shelves (we are unpacking . . . ). I don't have a degree in law or anything like that, I have a Master's in engineering and I'm working on a PhD; but I don't need a PhD in philosophy to read and learn it. Again that wasn't my logic, my logic is that you are trying to solve the problem of drugs by making them illegal, my logic is that making them illegal does very little to actually solve the problem and compounds the problem by introducing a whole new host of side-problems. If we start at the basic idea that both you and I want to solve the drug problem that is a good starting point. My premise is that your solution doesn't work! What works is understanding the why? Why do individuals use drugs and then solving that issue. I'm not sure what you going at here, but the assassination was the flash-point that set of the chain-reaction for WWI to occur: Wiki: "The assassination led directly to the First World War when Austria-Hungary subsequently issued an ultimatum against Serbia, which was partially rejected. Austria-Hungary then declared war, marking the outbreak of the war." Your appeal to fear, is to state several times that I believe (which I don't) that if we legalize drugs we've got to legalize everything and we'll live in a chaotic failed society.

?? I don't understand what you mean, but drug running and gun running are most definitely interlinked. You'll get no argument that drugs have little potential use in self-defense and I 100% agree that the defense against a totalitarian state was the reason for the 2nd amendment. Cartels can make a lot of money shipping drugs into the US to sell in the US markets at high prices, i.e. it's very profitable for cartels because of drug prohibition. The US and Mexico put a lot of resources into stopping those cartels. The cartels put a lot of resources into continuing their operation. Those resources include a way to protect their goods, i.e. they need guns. If you have a prohibition on weapons, who are going to be the most likely groups of individuals that will develop a black market for them? The ones willing to take the risk moving the goods from point A to point B sure isn't going to be your local gun shop owner. It will be the drug cartels who already have an established methodology for getting contraband merchandise from point A to point B.

No, what I'm getting at is what is law and what should be law? The Founder's and many of the great philosophical thinkers believed in discovering law. I find that a very interesting phrase to discover law. Basically what it means is that there is Natural Law, things that just are, neither man nor God can change them. Their belief was that written law was to codify and discover the intricacies of Natural Law. In other words, what behaviors are naturally wrong. Not wrong because one group of people didn't like something, but wrong because they are universally wrong. This is where the idea of life, liberty, and property comes from and more particularly the non-aggression principle. Government is force. Government legalizes the use and threat of violence against individuals if they do not do what the government wants. So then the question becomes, at what point is the government justified in depriving an individual of their life (death, jail), their liberty (they can't do something they want to), or their property (fines, taxes, etc)? My premise is that it is just and right for Government to deprive someone of their life, liberty, property when that individual has deprived another individual of their life, liberty, property. The only way those things can be deprived on an individual level are through theft, violence, deceit, etc. Rape is theft and violence, therefore laws should be made against rape. Far from anarchy, it is a much simpler society with very strict bounds. Someone leaves a loaded gun unattended on the table, a child grabs it and kills them self, through negligence that individual has deprived the child of their life. This is a different level than directly shooting a child, but in some way that individual has deprived and is responsible for the loss of another's life, liberty, etc. There is no need for a law that stipulates guns specifying the type of gun safe, etc. A firm understanding of natural law and property rights will clear it up. I leave it up to the bedrock of the justice system, the jury of peers to be able to determine the individual cases and to determine the appropriate course of action in these circumstances. With that said, is it morally just and right to put me in jail if on my own property, I make a voluntary exchange (i.e. no force involved) and I give someone a hammer in exchange for a nail? What if I again make a voluntary exchange but this time cash for alcohol? cash for drugs? I'm not talking about any surrounding circumstances. I'm just asking if I make a voluntary exchange in what situation is it justified for me to go to jail? I go to jail for exchanging cash for drugs because someone said I do, not because it I have harmed anyone else. The argument comes back, well you'll harm yourself. But who owns me? Do I own myself or does someone else own me? Many people drink soda and ingest all sorts of harmful things, they don't go to jail. If someone else owns me then they have the right to prevent me from harming myself. If I own myself, then I can do as much damage to my body as I please. The way to prevent people from harming themselves is through education. Take a look at smoking. The smoking rates in this country have dropped dramatically. One in Five U.S. Adults Smoke, Tied for All-Time Low From the article:"Smoking has long been inversely correlated with education, meaning smoking rates are highest among those with the least formal education and lowest among those with higher education levels" There is no need to ban smoking. People stop smoking because they realize over the long-term it does a lot of damage. In 200 years we have come a long way from Natural Rights and Natural laws, i.e. on laws based on life, liberty, property to positivism- laws based upon trying to shape and mold society into what the majority feel best. Ultimately positivism leads to absurdly stupid regulations and laws like the gas can spout rules: How Government Wrecked the Gas Can | Laissez-Faire Bookstore If you have ever tried to use a new gas can, you know what I'm talking about, or how about no more incandescent light bulbs starting next year.

This is an example of a logical fallacy and extremely poor actual debating. Because I said we shouldn't have prohibition= I said we shouldn't have laws prohibiting the above. And we should believe you because . . . . Another poor tactic. You dismiss my link to an article that wasn't peer-reviewed off the cuff (I assume you didn't read it), but yet you can share an article that is an opinion piece not-peer reviewed. What's good for the goose isn't good for the gander? I produced a peer-reviewed article, I expect you to do the same now. What obvious implications? I've produced several links about the Mexican Drug War raging on the border (which you claimed was absurdly false). Another poor debate tactic and logical fallacy, i.e. name-calling or implied name-calling. Umm, ever heard the term comparing apples to oranges? I'm sorry, I realize I had a bad link and I was wrong in saying logical fallacies, it's logical fallacies and rhetorical fallacies. A better link: http://infobeautiful3.s3.amazonaws.com/2013/02/iib_rhetological_fallacies_EN.png I can easily target an appeal to fear by a brief glance.

Originally Posted by yjacket View Post The whole border war exploding with Mexico right now is because of drug prohibition. Please see: Mexican Drug War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/28/opinion/drug-war-no-more.html?ref=drugtrafficking http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/01/us/tunnel-for-smuggling-found-under-border-tons-of-drugs-seized.html?ref=drugtrafficking Please see inside the wiki article on Sources: "Sources[edit] Mexico, a major drug producing and transit country, is the main foreign supplier of cannabis and a major supplier of methamphetamine to the United States.[34] Almost half the cartels' revenues come from cannabis.[50] Although Mexico accounts for only a small share of worldwide heroin production, it supplies a large share of the heroin distributed in the United States.[34][51] Drug cartels in Mexico control approximately 70% of the foreign narcotics that flow into the United States.[52] The US State Department estimates that 90% of cocaine entering the United States transits through Mexico, with Colombia being the main cocaine producer,[53] followed by Bolivia and Peru.[54] Mexican drug traffickers increasingly smuggle money back into Mexico inside cars and trucks, likely due to the effectiveness of U.S. efforts at monitoring electronic money transfers.[55]" My premise stands, the US war on drugs and crimilization of drugs is causing a heck of a lot more problems than it solves. If drugs were legalized, the price of it would drop like a stone and the drug cartels would be out of a job. The violence would drop and we wouldn't have 60,000+ people killed in a drug war. And please don't even get me started on how making cannibis illegal originally came about . . . . after reading the actual transcripts recorded during the extremely short Congressional debates it's pretty evident that a significant reason for the original law was racism . . .

Of course drug use harms individuals and society, but what is the best way to cure the disease, wave a magical wand and proclaim from henceforth there shall be no more of xyz!! Drug prohibition has done jack to prevent kids from getting access to it. I know that the only thing that will prevent my kids from getting into drugs, isn't going to be some idiotic law, it's going to be my parenting skills in teaching them that drugs are extremely harmful to them. Gangs and gang violence are more of a problem then drugs are and gangs get their funding through selling drugs, they can sell drugs at a very high-price and make a lot of money at it. This isn't hard. If a bag of MJ cost a buck, the gangs couldn't make money off it and wouldn't push it because there would be no profit incentive for them to do so. Legalizing drugs would actually help a lot of societal problems rather than hurt society. Because I've read many, many books on human action, behavior, psychology, economics, etc. I come at things from an economic bent, but all economics is really the study of human interaction. Everyone acts in what they perceive to be their own self-interest. Oh I can come up with more, I've shown a couple, now please show me where is your information? What the ??? again jumping the shark. You do realize you use a whole lot of logical fallacies. Here is a list: http://www.relativelyinteresting.com/wpcontent/uploads/2012/11/LogicalFallaciesInfographic_A2.png You should study it a bit. I'm sure I use logical fallacies too, but I do try and eliminate them.

Did you even click the second link, or you just don't want to because it doesn't fit in with what you want to believe? The American Law and Economics Review: About us: The rise of the field of law and economics has been extremely rapid over the last 25 years. Among important developments of the 1990s has been the founding of the American Law and Economics Association. The creation and rapid expansion of the ALEA and the creation of parallel associations in Europe, Latin America, and Canada attest to the growing acceptance of the economic perspective on law by judges, practitioners, and policy-makers. The Review is a refereed journal, published twice a year. It maintains the highest scholarly standards, and at the same time endeavours to publish international work that is accessible to the full range of membership in the ALEA, which includes practising lawyers, consulting economics and academic lawyers, and academic economists from around the world. The Review differs from other journals in the field in that it features book reviews and review essays. It also differs from other scholarly economic journals in particular, in that the Editors endeavour to make the material more easily accessible to non-academics.

And IMO one of the biggest issues is that instead of things being taken care of at local state levels, these issues are discussed at a national level with national laws. For example, if one owns 300 acres of land in Wyoming, I would sure want Bushmaster or an AR-15 with me at all times. They are fairly light and I could easily sling it over my shoulder and go for a horse back ride in the mountains. If I meet some nasty creatures I'm good to go. No way I'd want some stupid law limiting my magazine clip to 10 rounds if I meet a grizzly on my path. The application of one-size fits all policy across the states is a huge problem. And it was precisely this issue that the Founders wanted to avoid. I think they had more in mind a European Union (don't hate me conservatives :-) ) model rather than the current system we have. Developing national laws for 300+ million people, spread over thousands of miles = disaster.

There is so much wrong with what followed after that I'm not sure where to begin; especially when things jump the shark by mentioning ebola virus, etc. We go from guns to ebola to abortion. . . okay whatever floats your boat. The big issue is that very, very few people understand what laws are supposed to do. Laws have gone from local societies and protecting life, liberty, property to I want a law that bans xyz because I think it's wrong and my way of life is better than your way of life. And this speaks to my point above. The premise being I believe smoking marijuana to be wrong, therefore it must be criminalized. As far as prohibition goes, respectfully you do not know what you are talking about. I'm sure you have heard of Al Capone and speakeasies? There are many documents of scholarly research done on the affects of prohibition. http://www.johndclare.net/America5_Poholek.htm Violence and the U.S. prohibitions of drugs and alcohol "This paper examines the relation between prohibitions and violence, using the historical behavior of the homicide rate in the United States. The results document that increases in enforcement of drug and alcohol prohibition have been associated with increases in the homicide rate, and auxiliary evidence suggests this positive correlation reflects a causal effect of prohibition enforcement on homicide. Controlling for other potential determinants of the homicide rate does not alter the conclusion that drug and alcohol prohibition have substantially raised the homicide rate in the U.S. over much of the past 100 years." The whole border war exploding with Mexico right now is because of drug prohibition. Instead of prosecuting real criminals, my local county's jail is 80% full of drug offenders (straight from one of the judge's mouth). Drug prohibition makes it more profitable for criminal enterprises to succeed. What is a major factor in why so many urban kids join gangs, because besides having a family they can make a heck of a lot more money dealing drugs than working at the QuickiMart. I used to be 100% for drug criminalization and prohibition; my morality hasn't changed (it's probably gotten stronger), but I understand economics and human behavior a heck of a lot better now. And simply put, it doesn't work; all it does is make a lot of criminals out of people who need a lot of help. Education is the key to these societal wide problems such as gun violence and drugs, not laws.

Nope, all it would do is cause gangs to have greater power. The economics of prohibition. Prices of such guns would skyrocket, which would cause a huge profit margin on the black-market. The huge profit margin would encourage bad guys to get into the gun-running business (I'm sure they already are to a certain extent). I much rather prefer having generally law-abiding firearm dealers selling semi-automatic weapons vs. gangs. Do you think gangs would cease to have semi-automatic weapons if a law banned them?

Good stuff Anatess. I have a lot of concerns with military firepower vs. civilian firepower. IMO if the police can use it, a private citizen can use it. If a situation like the Egyptian riots ever come to here, I don't want to be throwing rocks at the police!! Supposedly the idea behind 10-15 rounds is someone can do less damage before reloading. However, if someone is really intent on doing damage, they will carry multiple weapons and magazines. Magazines can be modified to hold more than 10-15 rounds. For decent weapons, like a Glock it takes seconds to reload, it's not like it takes 30 seconds to reload. In a real-world situation with a shooter and people having gone from white to black, individuals are not going to be able to react fast enough during a reload to make much of a difference. Most stories about how mass-shootings end are either the police cornered him and shot him, the shooter shot himself, or an armed citizen shot him. Limiting rounds is one of those things like going through body scanners, it makes people feel good but on a practical level it does nothing. Guns in general are pretty simple a Glock 19 has 33 parts. You can now 3d print plastic guns. You have a very good point at the end; we do have a breakdown of society problem.

And there in lies the crux of the issue with individuals who want gun-control. You have hit the nail on the head. Gun-control advocates want to use the power of the state to prevent accidents. So in an effort to prevent accidents, we pass laws that criminalize a type of behavior that in itself does absolutely 0 harm to anyone. The issue becomes the following: who actually enforces all the laws to "prevent" bad things from happening? It means, larger, more obtrusive, more invasion, more costly government. It means more regulations, it means more regular citizens "policing" other citizens and then when they find out something is against a regulation filing a complaint to some bureaucratic entity. So for example a law gets passed that when you buy a gun you have to certify (or purchase a safe). Of course now, the gun seller has to fill out and file paperwork to that effect, the buyer has to purchase an "approved" safe, the safe-maker has to build an "approved" safe. At some point you have to make sure the safe is installed correctly, someone has to file some paperwork to "certify" it is safe. And on and on and on. So now in the effort to "prevent" accidents, an entire state apparatus has appeared, with inspectors, regulators, enforcers, etc. causing more time and energy to be wasted for everyone involved in the transaction. This entire apparatus is supported by tax dollars or deficit spending. I'm sure MOE will think I'm "jumping the shark" here, but I guarantee the NSA isn't looking for individuals who have broken the law, they are looking at information to prevent incidents. It is a fundamental difference in philosophy. For me law enforcement and police exist to capture and prosecute after a crime is committed. I acknowledge that bad things will happen and the best thing we can do is to prosecute those individuals who do bad things. For others, law enforcement exists to prevent crime and the best we can do is to enact as many laws as possible to prevent bad things from occurring.

Umm, I think there is already a law on the books for this: involuntary manslaughter involuntary manslaughter legal definition of involuntary manslaughter. involuntary manslaughter synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary. We don't need another law restricting further rights; it's up to the DA to prosecute for involuntary manslaughter and up to the jury to convict for it.

You certainly don't owe me or anyone else an explanation; I was trying to understand better what was going on as several things didn't make sense to me and still don't make sense to me as in the process of writing things down several things have been left out piecemeal (like are you divorced or not divorced? visitation for kids? now multiple counselors?, etc. what kind of abuse? etc). Please know that the Atonement covers much more than our sins; it is truly all-encompassing. In order for you to become the individual Heavenly Father wants you to become you will need to learn how to rely upon the Atonement. Once you take advantage of the Atonement and gain the depth and breadth of understanding of it, the anger and the bitterness will go away. You will be able to heal yourself and become whole. Any caring or thoughts about what the Bishop, what other people think, etc. won't matter. All that will matter is your relationship with God and Christ and how they have helped you heal through the power of the Atonement. I will caution against one thing and that is getting involved in any type of a relationship for a while-it should probably be one of the furthest things from your mind. I could be wrong on this, but from what I've gathered individuals who have been abused who do not have adequate time to heal themselves can end up in a very similar situation. Pam it's been 14 years, Quin it's been at least 5.

Abuse is obviously wrong, but you still haven't defined what is going on. Domestic violence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Domestic Violence and Abuse: Signs of Abuse and Abusive Relationships Please select from one or more of the list provided in above links. When you say physically abused the kids, what do you mean? He has spanked them or he's kicked them and caused bruises? No one except you knows what is really going on, but you obviously have a huge amount of anger and hate towards your spouse. You've mentioned in generalities a lot of things that reflect an extremely poor marriage, but you haven't mentioned anything that constitutes abuse (besides the fact that you claim he abuses you and the kids). Quin mentions things that have happened that are so utterly wrong . . . my goodness Quin . . . In the above response, you mentioned the following words in regard to your spouse, "too stupid", "ignorant", "bumbling", "phenomenally stupid", ""bumbles", "unluckiest guy". I'm curious if you ever decided to try a second counselor? Also this doesn't make sense to me. "But the kids are telling me stuff he's been doing on his visitation days and it sounds like he's just about reached his good-behavior limit and is about to snap. They're under strict instructions what to do if he does, hopefully it will not be bad enough to actually do damage to anyone." So are you already divorced? Or just separated now and you have a visitation arrangement setup outside of the court system? I'm kind of confused because I thought generally speaking people don't talk about visitation days unless it's court ordered?

Some good advice here. IMO part of the process of growing up is to become emancipated from our parents. To do this we need to completely own our decisions. Once we start to do this, regardless of whether someone agrees or disagrees with our actions they will respect it. You can simply have a good discussion with your Dad (and Christmas could be a great time). Something like Dad, I want you to know how much I love you and appreciate you, I want you to know how much I love God and how much I love Christ. I have felt Him inspire me in my life many times. I have felt His Spirit in my life and because of this I have recently joined the LDS Church or Mormon (and then bear a testimony). Let him know how much you appreciate his guidance but that you have felt strongly about joining the church. He may not like it, he may not agree with it but if not immediately he will come to respect your decision. I have had the opportunity (probably the unfortunate kind) to be involved a little in politics. And this much I can say, if you are not rock solid in what you believe and who you are and I mean like a rock you will end up becoming someone completely different with different goals than when you start out. Politics is in general an absolutely disgusting game where the crooks, bullies, and thieves rule and the honest, good, and virtuous are kicked about. And it doesn't matter which "side", they are just about all the same where the only thing that really matters is power, influence and money; ideas are just what someone needs to tell others to get elected. There are very, very few principled good men and women in politics and I admire them deeply. They pay a cost every day to stand up and be principled. They have backbones of steel; and the only way to get a backbone of steel is to continuously take a stand for what you believe in and to not waver.

I disagree that life is violence; it is the same thing as saying that life is suffering. Life has the full range of human action which can and does include violence and suffering. Sometimes I think we have a huge confirmation bias in seeing violence. We see violence in the news, movies, books, etc. It makes things "exciting" and the reason why it makes things exciting is because in peoples day-to-day normal lives violence is an extremely rare occurrence. If it occurred constantly in our daily lives individuals would turn off the violence in movies, news, etc. because it would no longer be exciting it would be drudgery to watch a movie full of violence and then have our lives consumed by it. I also disagree that in humanity most of life ended by human violence, the facts do not bare this out at all. I think that one of the reasons it was included in the scriptures is because the modern society sees a lot of violence, some real, most of it acted. The ratio of violence consumed (through media) vs. violence experienced is extremely high. This high level of consumed to experienced does many things, most of it bad: it makes us believe that violence is a part of everyone's life, it provides a pattern of how we "should" act if violence occurs to us, it desensitizes us to it, it makes it seem normal and accepted, it trivializes the real consequences of violence. I believe the scriptures are there to remind us that it has real consequences, some good but most of the consequences end up being bad. The older I get the more that I really enjoy the Non-Aggression Principle. Sometimes violence on our part can be justified, however I often reflect on a couple of things. "And it came to pass that their brethren, the Lamanites, made preparations for war, and came up to the land of Nephi for the purpose of destroying the king, and to place aanother in his stead, and also of destroying the people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi out of the land. 21 Now when the people saw that they were coming against them they went out to meet them, and aprostrated themselves before them to the earth, and began to call on the name of the Lord; and thus they were in this attitude when the Lamanites began to fall upon them, and began to slay them with the sword. 22 And thus without meeting any resistance, they did slay a athousand and five of them; and we know that they are blessed, for they have gone to dwell with their God. 23 Now when the Lamanites saw that their brethren would not flee from the sword, neither would they turn aside to the right hand or to the left, but that they would lie down and aperish, and bpraised God even in the very act of perishing under the sword— 24 Now when the Lamanites saw this they did aforbear from slaying them; and there were many whose hearts had bswollen in them for those of their brethren who had fallen under the sword, for they repented of the things which they had done." Only twice did Jesus enact violence, once on the moneychangers and once on the fig tree. Don't worry, I'm very well-armed at my house, but those things do cause me to pause and ponder a few things.