The Armed Citizen

[jonmyrlebailey]

!@#$%^&*o, folks I am newbie at this site

 

A little about me to get to know me. I am pro-gun and pro 2nd Amendment 100%, baby!!

I belong to Gun Owners of America and believe in their side of the gun rights issue 100%.

 

I am an American Veteran and the US Armed Services, I feel, were a tad bit anti-gun for my personal tastes when I was in from 1988-1995.

 

The US military (I was specifically in the Army) generally does not allow enlisted personnel of low rank (below the Corps of Noncommission Officers level) to maintain private firearms at their barracks or on-installation housing unit or in their private cars on-post. This was my experience in the service. Unit commanders tell soldiers that they must submit personnel arms to unit armories until such time they would remove them from the installation altogether. In other words, many military personnel are not allowed to maintain personal weapons on installations (or in certain US-occupied foreign countries) without approval of local unit commanders, registration of such guns with local post law-enforcment agencies, as the MP station, and most often have to relinquish such arms to unit commands until they check such arms out to leave the duty station for good or to go hunting or target shooting at the range. Such guns are of no service to on-post personnel for personal security if the arms are under lock and key by commanders.

 

The military has this policy and at!@#$%^&*ude probably because military br!@#$%^&* is too yellow to trust its troops to more freely possess personal weapons (and, also, military-issued weapons at any time at free will, which soldiers can not freely possess at all times for personal security either). It was not uncommon, however, for Army sergeants to carry firearms in private automobiles and/or at their living quarters on intstallations, and at their places of duty. The modern soldier (of lesser rank) in our military is not allowed to possess any weapon (gi-issued-or-otherwise) at any time of his own free will. He does not have the same level of personal firearms rights that even most US civilians have.

 

How can our troops be trusted to protect our nation on the battlefield if they are not to be trusted with private firearms on military installations or on duty stations in foreign nations whereby their personal security is even more at risk? This is a serious problem, I personally feel, in our military. Was our military historically always this anti-gun or very highly restrictive on firearms possession by its low-ranking enlisted members?

[MikeTheNose]

Politics Forum....

[PoLiX]

Moving to Politics.

[jonmyrlebailey]

Politics Forum....

 

wrong thread

 

Moving to Politics.

 

wrong thread

[SeVeR]

The army cannot have it's weapons used for anything other than official duty and training and should restrict their use to avoid the possibility that a lower ranked soldier might do something stupid or undisciplined. The way i see it, the army bought those guns and owns those guns, and therefore has the right to restrict their use upon loaning them to soldiers.

 

As for personal guns, it's probably more to protect the base from security risks. I don't expect any ordinary citizens to be able to bring their guns into the base either. A personal gun could be left somewhere by its owner, making it a security risk. If its a base you're talking about, then they have every right to restrict you from carrying a gun in there if they want to.

 

Some places have to be gun-restricted, such as schools. The problem arises in America when you have a gun-restricted area, bordered (surrounded) by a pro-gun country. You get massacres by people breaking the rules. I don't know if Washington is still anti gun, but what you had there was a city going anti-gun and the crime rate going up... for the simple reason that the people were unable to defend themselves. A city's borders are not sufficient to stop criminals bringing guns into the city. The only way to stop guns is to make a country-wide ban. That Korean guy bought his legally, and the Columbine killers got theirs through a friend who bought the guns legally. Thousands of guns are also stolen each year from people who bought them legally. In my opinion, the legal system of selling guns is what is arming the criminals. Only the professional criminals with the connections and the money to import guns go down that method. The meth-druggies, street muggers, and psychopathic m!@#$%^&*-murdering teens go down the route available to them. Unfortunately we're more likely to meet this type of criminal than a professional !@#$%^&*!@#$%^&*in.

[Aileron]

Ofcourse if you have a country wide ban, then people will get their weapons from another country, as what is happening in Europe. If you have a world-wide ban however, reality states that people will get what they want. Otherwise illegal drugs would not be such a successful smuggling industry.

 

The truth of the matter is that the drug industry functions in a strange way. One way to look at it is that those addicted to drugs are actually the lowest level of employees on the chain. They steal money from the community and give it to the dealers in exchange for drugs, their defacto salary. Point being, drug dealers will always have the resources to get guns, and their source of income comes from these petty criminals, so they would be more than willing to provide these petty criminals with weapons.

 

 

However, JPC is talking about the MILITARY here. It is understood that while in the military you have no rights.

 

Generally, all politics aside, restrictions upon weapons are a method used to control the populace. The reason why its the Second Amendemt is because in the ages of antiquity when Kings needed to control the masses, restrictions on weapons were the second thing they tried, right after preventing dissidents from voicing their views. (and trust me, when they did, their excuse for doing so was always security related.)

 

So the question here is: In the military, should the officers control the soldiers every thought and action? The answer is yes, because its a military organization and such control is needed to maintain the strength of the army.

[NBVegita]

sever by the time I was 17 I had, in my possession at one point or another, 3 different weapons that were not purchased legally. I did hang with a rough croud, but none of them were "big time"

 

If I can get guns as a kid, anyone who really wants one can get one.

[AstroProdigy]

If they're sold legally on a large scale as if they're candy, even the mentally disturbed people, then anyone can get illegal ones also.

[SeVeR]

It depends what you classify as legal or illegal. In my opinion "legal" includes all guns that were originally intended for legal purchase/use. This includes all the legally bought guns that get stolen and sold on the black market. If you can unequivocably tell me that those guns were illegally imported and were not just stolen guns sold to you through some sort of dealer then i'll believe it's that easy.

 

To all of you who say it'll be just as easy to import guns (like drugs), then consider this: A bag of drugs, that is equal in weight to a gun, is probably worth 10 times as much. So why would a drug dealer waste space importing guns at 1/10 the profit? Now consider my argument that only the professional criminals get the guns in an anti-gun society. To make importation profitable the price of guns would have to rise significantly for it to be worthwhile to the importers - and there you have it, the petty thiefs, druggies and muggers are cut out of the equation, unless they want/can spend a fortune on a gun.

 

Basic economics, example - England, shootings are rare, and the last thing i'd expect a thug on the street to have is a gun. I couldn't say the same for America. In America you may be able to buy a gun for 50 bucks... i don't know personally, but i doubt you'd find someone willing to import one for that, and i doubt you'd find a meth-druggy or a petty thief willing or able to spend 500 bucks for one.

[NBVegita]

Handguns are pretty expensive here.

 

The Glock 9MM the VT shooter purchased cost him $571, and included the 50 rounds of ammunition.

 

So if you import 10 glocks, and sell them at $300, almost half of market value, thats 3g's. It is very economical to import guns. Besides, every small timer has his supplier, who has his supplier who has his supplier who has a lot of money and a lot of guns. They don't want their merchandise getting stolen, so they arm these people. Most of your drug dealers don't pay for the guns they own, their suppliers do.

[jonmyrlebailey]

However, US military personnel of certain rank (often pay-grade E-5 and above) often have the privilege to carry personal weapons at will on military installations. The lowest ranking soldiers are not allowed to freely possess ANY weapons at will.

 

One of the main reasons I volunteered for separation from the military (an early-out discharge) was because of the sheer LACK of rights military personnel (especially of the lowest-ranking enlisted pay-grades) as compared with ordinary citizens. I highly value the personal gun rights I was not afforded while in the service. I still think US military commanders are chicken-s__t for so highly restricting firearms possession by the lowest-ranking personnel.

 

I still think the US military a highly ANTI-GUN establishment and such reason being that cowardly military br!@#$%^&* is afraid to trust the lowest-ranking personnel to bear any weapons freely at will at any time. I do not think our American military command authority was this chicken-s__t during earlier parts of our history as in the WW II era.

 

If I were President, I would implement an Executive Order to US military top commands in the cabinet to allow ALL military personnel much more freedom in regards to possession of personal guns (including concealed personal weapons) for personal protection on or about their duty stations provided such personnel do not commit crimes, have no unlawful intent to commit crimes, don't handle such firearms in an unsafe or physically-unsecure manner, have no convictions of violent crimes, are not psychiatrically-diagnosed as being a danger to themselves or others or otherwise display such arms in an unjustifiably threatening manner. I would push Congress for more pro-gun legislation in the military regulations and in the civilian sector as well.

[jonmyrlebailey]

The bottom line about guns in the military: it is either a trust issue or an arrogant zealot issue

 

Either military officers are cowards, or they fear their power or authority (or ego) would be compromised if they were to allow low-ranking troops more personal firearms freedom on bases or places of duty.

 

The question is, how can officers be so sure that these otherwise-"untrustworthy" soldiers won't shoot them in the back w/ military weapons and issued ammo in the bush?

 

In our society, how can we even trust young, inexperienced (rookie) rank-and-file police offers on the streets to handle duty guns safely, judiciously and prudently?

 

Often, military logic is quite self-contradicting.

[ESCANDAL0SA]

Handguns are pretty expensive here.

 

The Glock 9MM the VT shooter purchased cost him $571, and included the 50 rounds of ammunition.

 

So if you import 10 glocks, and sell them at $300, almost half of market value, thats 3g's. It is very economical to import guns. Besides, every small timer has his supplier, who has his supplier who has his supplier who has a lot of money and a lot of guns. They don't want their merchandise getting stolen, so they arm these people. Most of your drug dealers don't pay for the guns they own, their suppliers do.

 

you will rarely find illegally imported guns because the business is too risky and there isn't a guarantee that money will come quick, even though it's rewarding financially, it takes a long time to actually make profit. most of the guns on the streets are stolen. the reason why people engage in such activities in the first place is to earn quick money. that's why there are more drug dealers because it's less risky, more customers, and quick money. drug dealers' suppliers don't necessarily equip their sellers with guns. it's every man for himself, if you wanna protect yourself, you have to get the gun yourself. if you get jumped and you have the drugs stolen, your supplier won't care, it's all on you.

[ESCANDAL0SA]

Some places have to be gun-restricted, such as schools. The problem arises in America when you have a gun-restricted area, bordered (surrounded) by a pro-gun country. You get massacres by people breaking the rules. I don't know if Washington is still anti gun, but what you had there was a city going anti-gun and the crime rate going up... for the simple reason that the people were unable to defend themselves. A city's borders are not sufficient to stop criminals bringing guns into the city. The only way to stop guns is to make a country-wide ban. That Korean guy bought his legally, and the Columbine killers got theirs through a friend who bought the guns legally. Thousands of guns are also stolen each year from people who bought them legally. In my opinion, the legal system of selling guns is what is arming the criminals. Only the professional criminals with the connections and the money to import guns go down that method. The meth-druggies, street muggers, and psychopathic m!@#$%^&*-murdering teens go down the route available to them. Unfortunately we're more likely to meet this type of criminal than a professional !@#$%^&*!@#$%^&*in.

 

you make a good point that the criminals involved in these school shootings got their guns legally...but making a country-wide ban isn't going to solve it. in VA, guns are banned, and the crime rates were high. there are places that have more of a balance...gun laws were more strict but there wasn't a country-wide ban, and these places had lower gun crimes. the more restrictions and the harder the laws, deviation increases. i think the problem lies in how easily these guns are given out. if there were more restrictions, and the process involved extensive background search, it would be much harder for anyone to get a gun, criminal or not. this won't eliminate or decrease gun crimes right away, but i think it's the first step in going in the right direction.

Edited April 26, 2007 by L0SA

[SeVeR]

i think the problem lies in how easily these guns are given out.

You're right, a centralized government run agency should be set up as the only legal source of guns in order to make sure background-checks are performed correctly. The VA shooter was known to the authorities and would have been stopped from buying a gun legally. I can't imagine this `loner' having the slightest idea, or the social skills, to buy a gun illegally through criminal connections.

 

but making a country-wide ban isn't going to solve it. in VA, guns are banned, and the crime rates were high.

The problem is state borders are nothing like country borders. There are no police checks or border crossings, just a sign-post. Most Americans probably don't even know which states have a ban on guns. You can't control guns in just one state.

 

Maybe banning guns country-wide would be a bad idea. First i would try to encourage conceal carry (by making it legal in all states), as this really is a deterrent and a good defense against criminals. If guns are legal, then allow people to use them is what i say. I would also remove the gun-shops and all private dealerships, in favour of a centralized government agency. The agency could in effect employ all the previous gun-shop owners, but would take over the more sensitive areas of the business such as supply, and background checks.

 

NBV:

So if you import 10 glocks, and sell them at $300, almost half of market value, thats 3g's.

And you could probably make 30g's from the same weight in cocaine, so why import guns? And LOSA is right to say that the demand is not guaranteed, you have to find buyers, and it's extremely risky as guns are used in crimes, drugs are not. Edited April 26, 2007 by SeVeR

[NBVegita]

First off LOSA, coming from an area where growing up I lived and was friends with drug dealers, never once did they pay for their guns. Because their "merchandise" isn't their merchandise. It is someone else's, someone who has a lot of money invested in it. Your local drug dealers are not rich, so if 3g's of drugs get stolen, the supplier is out 3g's. They don't like to be out 3 dollars.

 

If guns were illegal it would be a much more profitable enterprise as there would then be a high demand for guns, and no guns to be found. You take away our right to bear arms you take away our right to protect ourselves. And where do we stop? I mean if we can take away the right to bear arms, do we take away the right of freedom of speech? We're already pushing on that one.

 

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=27434

 

Pro choice people argue that it is their cons!@#$%^&*utional right to choose, as decided by Roe vs Wade. Yet most of them support taking away our cons!@#$%^&*utional right to bear arms, something that was in our founding bill of rights. In 2006 the gun ban in DC was ruled uncons!@#$%^&*utional, and that is how it should be.

 

And sever, on your scale cocaine is one of the drugs you can get the most money for, so why import pot when you can make 5 times as much from importing cocaine?

Edited April 26, 2007 by NBVegita

[SeVeR]

And sever, on your scale cocaine is one of the drugs you can get the most money for, so why import pot when you can make 5 times as much from importing cocaine?

It depends on your customer base. If you're a drug dealer and you get a few people coming to you for pot, then its up to you to decide whether its profitable to sell them the pot. If you're making a shed-load selling cocaine then why waste your next shipment on a cheaper drug? There are some dealers who have many customers wanting pot, and therefore get that drug imported. Secondly, you should know that dealers have a hold on certain business oppurtunities, and are hostile to those who try to muscle in on their business. Therefore you get alot of minor dealers opting out of the coke game, for the pot game. Thirdly, weed is quite often grown in the US and doesn't need to be imported, cutting costs.

 

"something that as in our founding bill of rights", you say that as if it means something.

 

If guns were illegal it would be a much more profitable enterprise as there would then be a high demand for guns, and no guns to be found.

Yes it would be a much more profitable enterprise. But money won't magic itself into the pockets of street muggers, thiefs and the lowly s!@#$%^&* type of criminal that we're most likely to meet in a dark alley. There will be more criminals willing to fork out the money (they would have spent a fraction of the price when they were legal anyway), but at the same time there'll be more cut off from guns by the hiking of prices.

[NBVegita]

It's not your every day thiefs and muggers that are committing the majority of the murders. Its the gangs and drug dealers. Its the people who have the money and or resources to get them that do. Not saying that some street muggers and thiefs don't have guns, but they are a very very low fraction of the murders that occur from guns.

 

Even if a street mugger or thief has a gun, the majority of the time they won't use it.

 

And I don't know about you, but I'm !@#$%^&* proud of my country, and proud that we have our bill of rights, the very basis for how we have become the country we are today.

 

If you don't like the cons!@#$%^&*ution, or our bill of rights, I suggest you go to a country where if you even mention that you think the president isn't doing a good job, you will never be found again.

 

As for the prices, it would actually be cheaper to buy illegally than legally, because it is not the price of a handgun that is the expensive part, you have to pay at least in NY, $200 in fees, plus take a course, which has a fee, and then if you buy a gun from a dealer there is a huge markup.

 

That VT kid paid $571 for a 9MM and 50 rounds. Just search the internet and see what kind of deals you can get.

Edited April 26, 2007 by NBVegita

[SeVeR]

and proud that we have our bill of rights, the very basis for how we have become the country we are today.

Yea, thats the patriotic bs they tell you to believe. America was just another farming community, built on the hard work of its people (not a piece of paper) until it started to benefit from the influx of immigrants. It benefitted further from being uncommitted in the world wars. America just sat back, selling weapons and food in massive quan!@#$%^&*ies until they had hoarded enough wealth to put in a decisive blow against the side they liked least. They crippled the economy of Britain after one of the wars, i can't remember which one, and made their way to the top. America didn't need a bill of rights to do this, all they needed was the hard work and intelligence of it's people, together with a little cold-hearted back-stabbing. What America calls rights, other countries call laws, and we exist just the same under our laws that you do under your rights.

 

It's not your every day thiefs and muggers that are committing the majority of the murders. Its the gangs and drug dealers. Its the people who have the money and or resources to get them that do. Not saying that some street muggers and thiefs don't have guns, but they are a very very low fraction of the murders that occur from guns.

If the gangs benefit from stolen weapons, then i don't really see your point. But if they're being supplied by drug-barons wanting to protect their investments with imported guns, then maybe you're right. I'm guessing it's a bit of both. I don't really see how stopping at least some of them is a bad idea.

 

If you don't like the cons!@#$%^&*ution, or our bill of rights, I suggest you go to a country where if you even mention that you think the president isn't doing a good job, you will never be found again.

Lol, if you don't like it, you can GEEEETTTT out! Ahh South Park - fond memories. I find most of the laws that have been upgraded to rights to be the things that every western country holds dear. There's nothing special about America, we can all speak freely and worship whatever we want aswell. The problem comes when one of these so called rights is not universally accepted. It becomes an enemy of democracy and an excuse for oppression.

 

As for the prices, it would actually be cheaper to buy illegally than legally, because it is not the price of a handgun that is the expensive part, you have to pay at least in NY, $200 in fees, plus take a course, which has a fee, and then if you buy a gun from a dealer there is a huge markup.

 

That VT kid paid $571 for a 9MM and 50 rounds. Just search the internet and see what kind of deals you can get.

You don't seem to understand. I'm talking about legally bought guns that get stolen and sold on the black market. They're dirt cheap and plentiful. And i don't know why you're using the VT kid as an example, he had the money to go down the totally legal and legitimate route and did!

[Aileron]

America got all those immigrants because while at the time other countries were richer, we didn't screw people over. The rest of the world had set up a system whereby if you were poor, your children and their children were destined to be poor as well.

 

The US set up a system where if you worked hard you could move up a notch. A poor immigrant fresh off the boat still had no reasonable chance of reaching the top, but atleast they had a chance to move up, as well as a chance to ensure that they prodgeny did not end up the same way.

 

Because of this, people moved here. Because we gave them a true reward for their efforts, people had motivation to work, and thus our economy grew. Other countries have as many natural resources as we do. However, the system they have makes it so that people won't make enough money to change their social standing. Thus, they don't have motivation to work, and thus the economy languashes.

 

Wars are not won with armies. Battles are won with armies. However, over the course of a long-term war, like the World Wars, its not the tanks you have but the gas and parts you have to fuel and repair the tanks. Its not the soldiers you have but the food and ammunition the soldier needs. Wars are won with economies. Economies come from the people. In some sense, the war is irrelevant to many things. The Soviet Union was involved in WWII from the beggining, and lost more in it than any other country involved. Yet afterwards, they emerged as one of the two superpowers. They did so because they had a strong economy. No matter how many resources the Nazis destroyed, they faced wave after wave of Russian forces until they were overcome. What caused the USSR to win WWII was that they had a stronger economy than Germany. After the war, that economy allowed them to compete in the Cold War for a good 40 years.

 

So how do we have a system that doesn't screw the workers over? We have The Bill of Rights. Lets face it, government tends to be run by the upper class. That's a anthropological constant. Having a cons!@#$%^&*uationalized government prevents the government from being a tool used by the uppoer class to keep the workers down. Granted, now we aren't the exclusive country that has those laws in place. Europe has learned, albeit not until after we passed them.

 

You may note that Europe did grant freedoms earlier than WWII. However, what's important is when did their economies be based upon workers who had freedoms. While 19th Century Britain had guarenteed rights to British citizens, their economy was based upon colonies such as India, in which the workers had no rights. By the way, Britain's economy collapsed when they lost half of those colonies and gave up the rest.

 

 

 

Back to the topic.

 

 

I can only think of one time and place where governments would ban weapons in order to control the populace. The place is planet Earth, the time is all of human history prior to 1776. The definition of 'weapon' varied. In medieval Europe it was mostly restricted to swords. In Japan it was anything with a blade or long handle. In Bronze Age China they just flat out banned bronze amongst the lower castes. The concept was the same in all cases.

 

On the obvious level, you need weapons in order to revolt. However, the banning of weapons is more subtle and pervasive than that. It makes the populace dependant upon the armed in order to depend themselves. It creates a government-enforced monopoly in the security deparment, and since everyone needs atleast some amount of security to live, this allows the government to set whatever price they want on a needed resource.

 

Have you seen those Geico commercials which feature "cavemen" who were offended by a comment? Believe it or not, it is true in concept. Anthropologically speeking, humankind has not had any major evolutionary changes in the past million years...the biggest one we have had is the ability for adults to process milk. The cavemen did have the same brain size and intellectual capacity as we do. If you transported a caveman foward through time he could live amongst us like everyone else other than a case of lactose intolerance.

 

Mankind has not evolved since the dark age, the bronze age, or even the stone age. All we have done is learn. We have learned that when government has the power to limit speach, officials will use it to silence compe!@#$%^&*ors. We have learned that when the government is allowed to freely search private properties, officials will use it to dig up dirt on their opponants. We have learned that when government has the power to station troops in private homes, that officials will use it to limit the resources of their rivals. Finally, we have also learned that when the government has control over who owns weapons, officials use it to create a security monopoly, and then charge peasants most of their livelihood just to live another day.

 

It is not wise to ignore a lesson we have learned.

 

 

That being said, JPC started this topic under the wrong name. He should have written "The Armed Soldier" instead of the "The Armed Citizen".

 

Frankly, I don't know what to say about JPC. The military is an organization that while you are commissioned will make you wear and uniform and tell you what to do every hour of every day, even if those orders might lead to your death mind you. Frankly, a soldier doesn't get First Amendment rights, let alone Second Amendment rights.

 

JPC asks if it is because officers either fear their soldiers are seek power, and the answer is a little of both. There are countless instances in history where armies have !@#$%^&*ed defeat from the jaws of victory for the exact reason that officers could not control those under their command, or the similar fate of having a general who couldn't control his officers. One army of 100 will defeat 100 individuals every time. Realistically, an army of 10 will beat 100 individuals consistently. Having disorder in the ranks can and has ruined entire nations. The officers are correct in fearing the outcome of disorder, and should use every dictatorship style tactic on the books in order to keep that from happening.

[NBVegita]

well put ail.

[ESCANDAL0SA]

First off LOSA, coming from an area where growing up I lived and was friends with drug dealers, never once did they pay for their guns. Because their "merchandise" isn't their merchandise. It is someone else's, someone who has a lot of money invested in it. Your local drug dealers are not rich, so if 3g's of drugs get stolen, the supplier is out 3g's. They don't like to be out 3 dollars.

 

i grew up in area where all my friends and everybody around me were drug dealers too. perhaps there are 2 different types of suppliers. i don't know where exactly you're from, but places like new york, toronto, philly, mostly the east coast. suppliers don't care if your own life is lost, or if you get jumped for your drugs. if your drugs get stolen and your supplier is out 3 g's, guess who has to make it up? you. anyway you can get that 3 g's back, that's what you have to do. this is how it works with hardcore drug dealers, so our situations may be different in a lot of ways. many drug dealers are rich. i know drug dealers who make a better living than engineers.

Edited April 26, 2007 by L0SA

[ESCANDAL0SA]

You don't seem to understand. I'm talking about legally bought guns that get stolen and sold on the black market. They're dirt cheap and plentiful. And i don't know why you're using the VT kid as an example, he had the money to go down the totally legal and legitimate route and did!

 

you're right, stolen guns that are sold on the black market are really cheap. i could go out and get a gun for $100 right now if i wanted to. the more dirty the gun is, the more cheaper it is. you can buy guns for $50 on the streets.

Edited April 26, 2007 by L0SA

[ESCANDAL0SA]

but making a country-wide ban isn't going to solve it. in VA, guns are banned, and the crime rates were high.

The problem is state borders are nothing like country borders. There are no police checks or border crossings, just a sign-post. Most Americans probably don't even know which states have a ban on guns. You can't control guns in just one state.

 

Maybe banning guns country-wide would be a bad idea. First i would try to encourage conceal carry (by making it legal in all states), as this really is a deterrent and a good defense against criminals. If guns are legal, then allow people to use them is what i say. I would also remove the gun-shops and all private dealerships, in favour of a centralized government agency. The agency could in effect employ all the previous gun-shop owners, but would take over the more sensitive areas of the business such as supply, and background checks.

 

i agree that making it legal in all states means that anyone and everyone can defend themselves against criminals. however, you have think that if this were to happen, would the gun crimes across the state rise since everyone has access to a gun? surely, there will be situations in which gun use could've been avoided.

[NBVegita]

hard core?

 

2 different kids I know got shot and killed over losing $1800 worth of pot, and the other was killed over losing $2200 of meth. I live in central new york actually, and their suppliers came from toronto, buffalo, albany and NYC, I do not know where their suppliers came from.

 

Where I come from dealers don't play around. If you lose THEIR merchandise, you either pay them the cost or they'll take it from you. There aren't monthly installments.

 

First off LOSA, coming from an area where growing up I lived and was friends with drug dealers, never once did they pay for their guns. Because their "merchandise" isn't their merchandise. It is someone else's, someone who has a lot of money invested in it. Your local drug dealers are not rich, so if 3g's of drugs get stolen, the supplier is out 3g's. They don't like to be out 3 dollars.

 

i grew up in area where all my friends and everybody around me were drug dealers too. perhaps there are 2 different types of suppliers. i don't know where exactly you're from, but places like new york, toronto, philly, mostly the east coast. suppliers don't care if your own life is lost, or if you get jumped for your drugs. if your drugs get stolen and your supplier is out 3 g's, guess who has to make it up? you. anyway you can get that 3 g's back, that's what you have to do. this is how it works with hardcore drug dealers, so our situations may be different in a lot of ways. many drug dealers are rich. i know drug dealers who make a better living than engineers.