even here in Canada, accepting Cocaine is not even discussed...

Ya, cocaine won't be legal soon...or ever. It is way too addictive and physically harmful. Not to mention, the high lasts all of 15 minutes.

Weed will be legal soon. Like Magnus said, 25 years max. It is already essentially legal in CA.

Next on the list is probably ecstasy or something like that. Again, not a super harmful drug, but it has no approved medical purpose. We're at least 50 years away from legalizing something with solely recreational merit.

Meth is already legal as Desoxyn for ADD treatment. As an Adderall user...I'd much rather see Adderall banned than 'street meth' legalized.

A heartwarming story of joyful Americans finding assault rifles under the Xmas tree - - it almost brings a tear to your eye.

LOL

I have not read all the drivel in this thread, so I am going to ask: Is there a standard response to the argument that a bad guy with a gun need not be killed to be stopped? Why more deadly weapons instead of stun guns and so on?

In the United States, some jurisdictions have outlawed stun guns. New York, for example. However, I have no problem with a person macing or using a stun gun rather than a 9mm or some other weapon to attempt to stop a person like this. Preferably a combination, though that gets into a nebulous area where the victim moves close to criminal territory.

Here's some fun facts::


Ain't America grand!

'merica, died of freedom.

Why are they outlowed? Don't they do the good of weapons without most of the bad?

I would guess the risk of shocking people with heart defects or some other medical condition or using inordinate amounts of power on smaller persons.

Plus some states just do not like to have as much freedom as other states. Try building a swimming pool in southern California versus North Dakota. Note, it is not a water consumption issue.

I find it hard to believe that it has nothing to to with water consumption.

That is not a good argument in a debate about the necessity of lethal weapons. How about guns shooting tranquillizer darts?


Do they have fewer drownings where swimming pools are rare?

I do not disagree. I am perfectly fine with people using stun guns for sexual gratification, humor, or to stop criminals.


Ostensibly it has to do with ensuring things are built to spec in case of an earthquake. Mostly, it is just a way to tax things.

free meals for junkies? are you a communist or what?

Yes, senator, I am. You got a problem with that?

I did not think you were enough of an idealist to be a communist.

...but i pictured you in a boat on a river, with tangerine trees and marmelade skys.

Regarding the shooting of Phil Hartman in 1999:



When Schwarzenegger began his run for governor of California in 2003, he voiced support for the ban on assault weapons in the U.S. as well as the Brady Bill, the handgun violence prevention act. He told Time magazine:

So the news is now reporting that (summarizing)

1. He was a copy cat shooter. Wanted to top the Scandanavian guy who killed 70+ people.
2. He targeted the school because it was the easiest target for him to attack.

So let's see, it sounds like he was a media manufactured murderer directly influenced by the medias obsession with blanketing coverage of these crazies thus inspiring more lunatics to do the same damn thing. Also, maybe if this school had actual security he may have been surprised and killed himself even earlier. Perhaps even before any true carnage occurred.

Everybody wants to be famous for whatever reason nowdays fucking sad times

Doing a sex tape doesn't look that bad now hehe.

The pictures from that day still make me sick to my stomach.

Everybody wants their voice to be heard. We're on a forum to reach more people..

Programming Note: Crazies... don't forget to set your DVR's for PBS's wall-to-wall coverage of the event tonight!