House GOP to D.C. residents: Guns OK, marijuana dangerous Read more: http://www.wjl

[Crabtownboy]

Strange and twisted logic of the GOP.

If House Republicans have their way, District of Columbia residents won't be allowed to walk the streets with a joint in their pocket, but they will be allowed to carry a semi-automatic rifle.

The GOP-controlled House approved a spending bill Wednesday that would undo the District's strict gun-control laws and its law decriminalizing possession of small amounts of marijuana. The fate of the spending bill and the amendments will likely depend on negotiations between the House, Senate and White House.



http://www.wjla.com/articles/2014/0...marijuana-dangerous-105165.html#ixzz37uEmFaSo
Follow us: @ABC7News on Twitter | WJLATV on Facebook

We will probably have people with joints in the pockets and semi-automatic rifles. What a great combination.

 

[church mouse guy]

....We will probably have people with joints in the pockets and semi-automatic rifles. What a great combination.

That combination is called Democrats. There is no proof that any Republicans live in DC.

 

[Aaron]

House GOP to D.C. residents: Guns OK, marijuana dangerous

Bout time some common sense came out of GOP.

 

[General Mung Beans]

Bout time some common sense came out of GOP.

Why should pot be illegal when alcohol and tobacco are legal considering the latter two substances kills far more people?

 

[poncho]

Why should pot be illegal when alcohol and tobacco are legal considering the latter two substances kills far more people?

Because the government benefits in more ways than one. The main benefits are more funding, more power and more control over citizen's lives.

 

[church mouse guy]

As Lester Roloff used to say on the radio, modernist don't care for people in the ditch.

 

[carpro]

Sounds like a good bill to me.

I can understand why the left doesn't like it. They never like bills that are good for the governed instead good for the government.

There are zero CCW permits in DC and barely 40,000 legally owned firearms the District, yet they have a murder rate of 16 per hundred thousand population.

Taking guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens definitely has not worked.

A good CCW law would lower that figure significantly like it has in many other states.

 

[Revmitchell]

Sounds like a good bill to me.

I can understand why the left doesn't like it. They never like bills that are good for the governed instead good for the government.

Well the problem is the left needs a king to run their lives.

 

[General Mung Beans]

Well the problem is the left needs a king to run their lives.

And I'm sure the GOP doesn't despite opposing pot legalization (or even decriminalization)...

 

[church mouse guy]

Crabby raises a good question of should civil rights be given to residents of DC? The Bill of Rights promises that a person may own a firearm to defend himself. Should the Bill of Rights apply to residents of DC?

 

[Rolfe]

Crabby raises a good question of should civil rights be given to residents of DC? The Bill of Rights promises that a person may own a firearm to defend himself. Should the Bill of Rights apply to residents of DC?

Of course. Unless there is an exemption in the Constitution that I am not aware of.

 

[TCassidy]

One thing we learned in this country, and we learned it the hard way, is that prohibition does not work. All alcohol prohibition did between 1919 and 1931 was INCREASE the amount of beverage alcohol that was drunk, and create a criminal underclass to supply the demand.

The same is true today with marijuana (and other drugs). We now have a violent criminal underclass that supplies the demand. The main reason the police do not want decriminalization of drugs is that they would no longer have an excuse for the legal (?) theft of property called "asset forfeiture."

Gun control laws do NOTHING to take guns out of the hands of criminals, and "gun free zones" are simply advertisements of soft targets where the victims will be unable to defend themselves.

Prohibition does not work.

It does not work for alcohol.

It does not work for drugs.

It does not work for guns.

 

[Gina B]

​

Why should pot be illegal when alcohol and tobacco are legal considering the latter two substances kills far more people?

Don't worry. It finally dawned on the government that there is a lot of profit in marijuana, so the aspects that are harmful to society will soon be legal enough everywhere. The cheap and beneficial medical aspects will remain illegal or taxed beyond affordability.

 

[Revmitchell]

One thing we learned in this country, and we learned it the hard way, is that prohibition does not work. All alcohol prohibition did between 1919 and 1931 was INCREASE the amount of beverage alcohol that was drunk, and create a criminal underclass to supply the demand.

The same is true today with marijuana (and other drugs). We now have a violent criminal underclass that supplies the demand. The main reason the police do not want decriminalization of drugs is that they would no longer have an excuse for the legal (?) theft of property called "asset forfeiture."

Gun control laws do NOTHING to take guns out of the hands of criminals, and "gun free zones" are simply advertisements of soft targets where the victims will be unable to defend themselves.

Prohibition does not work.

It does not work for alcohol.

It does not work for drugs.

It does not work for guns.

Does it work for murder?

 

[General Mung Beans]

Does it work for murder?

Voluntarily questionable behaviours (such as alcohol and tobacco use) are different from behaviour that affects others directly (such as obviously murder or theft or even public nudity).

 

[Revmitchell]

Voluntarily questionable behaviours (such as alcohol and tobacco use) are different from behaviour that affects others directly (such as obviously murder or theft or even public nudity).

That is your personal characterization of those depraved behaviors, not mine. Further all of those behaviors effects others either directly or indirectly. Regardless often the outcomes are equal in nature.

However, your response does not speak to what I said. My questions was, "Does prohibition work for murder?" Either it does or it does not.

 

[Gina B]

If you could murder someone only a little, the question would be valid.

 

[Revmitchell]

How much is irrelevant.

Whether prohibition works or not is not effected by how much someone does it.

 

[church mouse guy]

Voluntarily questionable behaviours (such as alcohol and tobacco use) are different from behaviour that affects others directly (such as obviously murder or theft or even public nudity).

Chop logic. Leftist don't know right from wrong.

Liberals don't want to give civil rights to residents of DC. Modernists don't care for people in the ditch--that is why you want to legalize drugs, etc., because you don't care for the people that it will put in the ditch.

 

[poncho]

More label pasting and reverse logic? Oh brother. Yer losing it CMG.

Ending prohibition would reduce violence. But that's a proven fact and we all know how you fear those. The more fearful you become the more labels you have to apply.

You complain about liberals and leftists and socialists and communists and this and that and the other of not caring about people yet you seem to be the one that champions all the policies that keeps the cycle of violence turning.

In other words it's your policy that puts people in ditches six foot deep ditches.

I'm so glad the neocon insanity is finally being revealed for what it really is. A fundamental lack of empathy for others, an unhealthy need for control over other's lives and a paranoid fear of individual liberty. Which incidentally this country was founded on. That's individual liberty not the fear of it. Why do you hate our founding principles so anyway? What made you this way? Can it be cured? I hope so.

Get well soon. Please.