Alcohol is blamed for far more deaths than guns every year, so why... (Page 2)

It's interesting that alcohol was brought up in this discussion.  The Feds have tied alot of money to drinking age and DWI enforcement by states.  

You want Federal money, as a state, for road projects? You best play along with the guidelines that the Feds propose for DWI enforcement/drinking age.  

I imagine we will see something alone those lines with regard to gun laws, but I don't have a good vision of how that will play out.

It was easy to tie DWI to road projects.....it'll be fun to see how they apply gun laws to federal money.

And the talk has already begun. Many states and localities are saying they will not follow federal law within their borders. Montana and Arizona have introduced legislation that anyone can have anything and as long as it does not cross state lines the Feds have no say so in the matter.

But ya, the hammer is Federal funds. If you no longer want to play by the rules, you do not get the benefits.... which obviously will lead to... if I don't get the benefits, then state residnets will no longer pay for them. I'm not saying that any of that will go down today. lots of court challenges there.

but the fact remains... the Federal government continues to grow in size and power. And that might not be bad to some, except that it is also going broke from all the unfunded promises it can't keep. Economics will be the driver and there certainly will be challenges in the near future to Federal power. The 2A complicates it further.

Yeah, yeah, and yeah......but it still remains to be seen how the Feds will tie their funds to gun control like they have to DWI and road projects.

Watch and see.

Oh, hell yeah....make no mistake....the Feds are just watching to see where the "water"goes.  The "water" being money.  

Weed is on the brink of being legalized by the Feds....but they want to see where the money goes.  As it stands, marijuana is a huge profit for the Feds, and law enforcement agencies in general.  

Get serious.....the Feds won't even consider entertaining lest than 250 lbs. of marijuana for prosecution, but they'll seize your money, from drug profits, at $10,000....any of you smart guys want to guess on the percentages?  

For chrissakes....good weed these days goes for  $400.00 per ounce....go ahead and do the math, I made it as easy as I could.

Ya, and driving down the street the other day I saw a sign with "From $170 an OZ".... wierd to see driving down the road.

And that is the real driver behind the drug war... drug money and assets going to militarizing police departments. Tax comes out of somonconfinscated e's pocket and they want to know what you are going to do with it... nobody blinks at the billions confincated flowing into law enforcment.... so they can better confinscate more.

So many problems in this country... but for some reason the size of my magazine is the only one anyone wants to work on.

The issue/problem is that most people don't have a clue.  

Look, the deal with the drug problem is that it is linked to money on every end......enforcement and use/sales.  The govt. is as addicted to the money as any other entity is.  

Deal with it.

Yep, the Greastest Shell Game of all time.

Facts aren't scary.  They just are.  So before believing the hype of the media saying that it's just texting, take a look here:  https://www.aaafoundation.org/distracted-driving/>
There is a .pdf of the results. 

Last sentence of the conclusion:

"Finally, electronic device use and other distracted driver behaviors were strongly associated with looking away from the roadway, although electronic device use was only weakly related to serious incidents."

1.  This was a study just on teenagers.

2. That's the first mention I've seen on this thread at all about "believing the media hype saying that it's just texting"?

Texting and driving is one of the most dangerous things you can do while driving and should be illegal everywhere.  That's the simple point I'm making.

ps, Not sure what all the underlining is about?  I didn't mean that to be in there?

Oh, hell yeah....make no mistake....the Feds are just watching to see where the "water"goes.  The "water" being money.  

Weed is on the brink of being legalized by the Feds....but they want to see where the money goes.  As it stands, marijuana is a huge profit for the Feds, and law enforcement agencies in general.  

Get serious.....the Feds won't even consider entertaining lest than 250 lbs. of marijuana for prosecution, but they'll seize your money, from drug profits, at $10,000....any of you smart guys want to guess on the percentages?  

For chrissakes....good weed these days goes for  $400.00 per ounce....go ahead and do the math, I made it as easy as I could.

Sigh. When I was a kid....

Bro - be happy enough that you and I were kids when we were.....the THC content of the really good weed today is through the roof.  That ditch weed we smoked was good enough....if I had gotten my hands on some of today's weed I doubt I would have made it out of high school. 

But a drunk bus driver with 30 kids in his bus certainly could...

Gotcha.  So booze and guns are the same to you...

Tapping out.

I would be happy to discuss the issues of drunk driving and alcohol abuse.  That's a HUGE problem.  I will be happy to talk about guns and gun control as that has it's OWN set of problems.

But they are not the same.

It isn't a childish argument when the stated goals are the same.... to save the children. So your child being mutilated and dismembered by a 4000lb object is more acceptable compared to a magazine capacity, or a rifle with certain cosmetic features?

I understand what you are saying as far as using a distraction instead of dealing with the topic. However, there is not a "epidemic of violence" from what capacity a magazine holds. There are not people dying by the thousands from pistol grips. If you are going to have an intellectually honest discussion about children dying, then lets look at the things actually killing them.

Alcohol cost society more in DUI, criminal activity, domestic violence, lost time, and illness than ALL illegal drugs COMBINED. So then why do we not place the same level of condemnation on a recreational activity we place on a constitutional right? Could it have something to do with the tens of millions of responsible drinkers see no reason to give up something just because a small group of people are irresponsible?

Just some of the same ineffective, but symbolicly significant measures would be nice.

Any crime committed under the influence gets an "agrivated" attached and carries a mandatory 10 year sentence.

DUI- ten year mandatory sentence.

Life without parol for a death committed under the influence.

Drinking establishments have strict 3 drink maximums they can serve each patron.

Make 6 packs 4 packs. Limit the amount of alcohol you can buy in a month.

Or, we could just outlaw drinking in public. We don't mind if you do it at home, but you can't do it in public because you "endanger" the public.

Lets register every drinker. In order to buy alcohol, you must have some training you pay for, and then you get a license to drink, which must be renewed every year... since it is such a deadly activity that endangers public safety.

Of course we all know criminals can do and tget anything they want black market, but why are allowing legal avenues for them to kill people?

It isn't that I don't understand murder with a gun compared to drunk driving or a hammer... but when you give the reason you want to restrict gun use as "public safety" or "saving the children" based solely on emotional arguments... then you invite such comparisons your self. If there are those that want to repeal the 2A, then just say so and work to get it done. But when you want to argue non existent reasons as to why you want to restrict the use of right you feel should not be a right in the first place... then you argument is already childish you get the corresponding replies.

Still, a drunk bus driver with an assault rifle could cause their own special brand of mayhem.

While texting and eating fast food?

I understand all your points.

Obviously, DUI (and not texting) is HUGE HUGE HUGE problem.  Even bigger than guns in many respects.  We need to address that and we need to take that seriously.

But we need to look at guns.  I'm not saying banning or removal.  I like them and want them.  But there is ALWAYS something you can reexamine.  What we got now, is not working.  There has to be something that can be done to improve it.

But using the argument that we shouldn't be focusing on guns when there is a bigger killer out there (which is what it sounds like to me sometime)?  Or whatever you are doing to guns, should also be done to other offenders?  If you want to regulate guns, why are you not after knives?  Why don't we handle guns, then also look at knives?  Or drunks, or obesity, or whatever.

TO ME, it sometimes sounds like when a kid gets busted at doing something wrong and their defense is "everyone else is doing it or even doing WORSE things - why you picking on me?".