Why do liberals hate drug laws saying they don't work, but think banning guns would work?

by **adare** » Wed Jul 25, 2012 1:37 am

Cons are just as cognitively dissonant. Don't get me started.

by **donough** » Wed Jul 25, 2012 1:42 am

Dumb question because they're smoking their weed when they make those pronouncements.

by **jabin20** » Wed Jul 25, 2012 1:48 am

Well in a way you answered your own question...you used the words "liberals" and "think" in the same sentence, as if implying liberals were capable of logical or rational thought....

by **montrel68** » Wed Jul 25, 2012 2:03 am

Well in a way you answered your own question...you used the words "liberals" and "think" in the same sentence, as if implying liberals were capable of logical or rational thought....

Liberals love and list power over people. Druggies are placid people, easy to control.

by **armin** » Wed Jul 25, 2012 2:06 am

I've asked this same question. Maybe because they are hypocrites?

by **armin** » Wed Jul 25, 2012 2:13 am

I've asked this same question. Maybe because they are hypocrites?

They do not use logic anyways so why ask them?

by **starling** » Wed Jul 25, 2012 2:18 am

and vice versa, why do cons do the opposite?

me personally, I'm not sure either would work

by **orson19** » Wed Jul 25, 2012 2:22 am

Hmm a very interesting question. Your question could be flipped and asked the opposite way to conservatives. eg why do you think a ban on drugs works but a ban on guns wouldn't?

I'm fairly liberal but am pretty middle of the road gun-wise. My personal belief is that guns should pretty universally be legal with a few exceptions. Those exceptions being I think individual localities such as big cities should be able to have their own gun laws restricting their use there. I also think that there is a limit to how powerful a gun we should legally sell. The argument you hear from liberals is you wouldn't sell a guy a nuclear bomb would you? Meaning there is a limit even among conservatives to how deadly a weapon you think we should be handing out. (If you think we should sell nuclear weapons to people you're an idiot). So the question becomes how big a weapon is too big a weapon. I'm going to go ahead and say AK 47's and other assault rifles are pretty close to the line we should draw and don't have much of a practical purpose for self defense or hunting that a rifle or handgun couldn't provide to you. That point as to where the line is is arguable.

Now I'm pretty liberal drug-wise but I actually feel fairly similar about drugs as I feel about guns. I think drugs should more or less be legal with individual localities able to pass tougher restriction on their use if they have a problem. I also think the hardest of drugs should remain illegal. Things like Marijuana however are what fund drugdealers. The majority of hard drug dealers in the US couldn't stay profitable if it weren't for sales of marijuana and other softer drugs out there and would effectively go out of business. All for minimal damage to society. I equate marijuana to shotguns. Not a huge amount of societal problems are caused by either.

Anyways it's an interesting question to pose. Honestly I don't think there's much difference in how we should handle the policy towards either but it's interesting to see that both policies reflect a very conservative viewpoint to date.

by **caffar** » Wed Jul 25, 2012 2:34 am

Aside from the silliness of your apples and oranges comparison,Taking Britain and the US , Britian's gun ownership per capita is 6.2 guns / 100 population and their gun deaths are 0.46 per 100,000. In the US gun ownership is 88.8 guns/ 100 population and gun deaths are 10.27/100,000 , over 20 times as high .

Only a fool would not realize that more guns mean more deaths .While I have total compassion for the victims of Holmes.I have nothing but contempt for those whio for their own agenda, refuse tio see and accept the reality of the above comparison for they in effect are saying ,my 2nd anmendment rights are more inportant than human life .

As I said ,drugs is a different issue entirely .

by **bercnan72** » Wed Jul 25, 2012 2:45 am

Nobody is proposing to get rid of guns. Everyone knows that we are stuck with Gods curse on America (the second amendment)

If anything gun enthusiast inattention to the problem is what will bring about meaningful change. If I was them I'd get off my duff and do something.

Advertisments:

Useful Links: