Am 10.10.2011 07:29, schrieb John Smith:
On 10/8/2011 7:26 PM, RHF wrote:
On Oct 8, 5:39 pm, John wrote:
On 10/8/2011 5:13 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:

...

Alcohol is a drug in a way and cigarettes make quite addictive, but
that
was not, what I meant with illegal drugs.
I mean stuff like crack or heroine. These create a certain kind of
physical addiction, that is very hard to cure and forces the addictive
person to use these substances, unless they want to get severe pain and
health problems.

Like any substance, the price depends. It is a question of the way,
these substances are produced and not of the stuff itself. In
Afghanistan a great deal of the raw material is produced. This could be
bought there for relatively moderate prices. The processing to a
drug is
usual chemical work, that any good pharmaceutical plant could do.
...

In areas of So. America, Coca Leaf is legal. I think the wife and I
were on a train in Bolivia when we had our first cup of coca tea --
delightful stuff! As good or better than coffee, indeed a mix of coca
leaf with coffee beans is an ideal pick-me-up!

Coca tea should certainly be available here in the USA ... and, like
pot, the government should keep their noses out of others business and
what plants they consume ... if you are in public and endangering
yourself or others, different story ... if you are committing a crime,
different story, etc.

It was an insane plan to ever attempt to outlaw God given plants. I
don't know what insanity ever made it seem different, what thinking made
us wish to punish people for using plants, etc. ... but someday we will
have to return to sanity and tell the control freaks to mind their own
business and quit locking up people for using plants and committing no
other crime(s.) For one thing, we simply can't afford it, never could,
really ...

Regards,
JS

Some of the Marijuana Growers in the Northern
California Sierra Foothills have also been
trying to grow Coca Plants on Federal Lands.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca
.

Well, I definently don't like the "high" of marijuana, but coca is so
much like coffee as a pick me up that I can see real value in it ...
indeed, I believe coca-cola used to actually contain cocaine ...

It wasn't until this century began that drugs were illegal ... I can
remember that my grandmother still had supplies of opium and cocaine and
guarded them religiously ... doling them out for a toothache here,
someones insomnia here, etc.

The original argument, why to make drugs illegal, was basically that
people were duped into becoming addicted and supporting the "medicine
show man" selling his "tonics."

Well, times have a changed, everyone knows about drugs ... we can
decriminalize them now ... the only people who will become addicted are
those who wish to ... no one is going to be duped into it ...

Any substance is somehow a drug. So let's talk about narcotics - maybe.

If you consider all the suffering related to these drugs: mental and
health problems, loosing jobs, families and friends, a LOT of money and
possibly life. So warnings should be there. But it's not really a
question of the law and criminal investigation, if someone is taking
these substances.

On the other hand, this is not wanted neither, because consume has
negative side effects. But making this stuff illegal and consume a crime
makes matters much worse, since the addiction cannot be properly
treated, the stuff is mixed with any kind of toxins and the price for
the dose is getting very high, what inevitable leads to related crimes.

This is all a great big ugly mess. Most countries do not really solve
these problems, but have half-baked programs, that can make matters even
worse.

So people should start to think it over and calculate the benefits
against the costs and find a possible solution.

A solution would be a cure of addiction. Sounds like a silly proposal,
but there are certain therapies, that seem to work and are seldom used:

One way stems from Israel and that was to sedate the addictive person
during the detoxification.
Another way use a specific drug, but I forgot the name. It was kind of
hallucinogen plant from Westafrica.
The substitution with methadone seems to create more problems than it
solves, what leave the controlled hand out of the real drug.

something else:
this thread has still the title ' Small gun, the serious protection
you need ...' and is posted to 'rec.sport.golf' ;-)

Greetings

TH

On 10/10/2011 10:48 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 10.10.2011 07:29, schrieb John Smith:
On 10/8/2011 7:26 PM, RHF wrote:
On Oct 8, 5:39 pm, John wrote:
On 10/8/2011 5:13 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:

...

Alcohol is a drug in a way and cigarettes make quite addictive, but
that
was not, what I meant with illegal drugs.
I mean stuff like crack or heroine. These create a certain kind of
physical addiction, that is very hard to cure and forces the addictive
person to use these substances, unless they want to get severe pain
and
health problems.

Like any substance, the price depends. It is a question of the way,
these substances are produced and not of the stuff itself. In
Afghanistan a great deal of the raw material is produced. This
could be
bought there for relatively moderate prices. The processing to a
drug is
usual chemical work, that any good pharmaceutical plant could do.
...

In areas of So. America, Coca Leaf is legal. I think the wife and I
were on a train in Bolivia when we had our first cup of coca tea --
delightful stuff! As good or better than coffee, indeed a mix of coca
leaf with coffee beans is an ideal pick-me-up!

Coca tea should certainly be available here in the USA ... and, like
pot, the government should keep their noses out of others business and
what plants they consume ... if you are in public and endangering
yourself or others, different story ... if you are committing a crime,
different story, etc.

It was an insane plan to ever attempt to outlaw God given plants. I
don't know what insanity ever made it seem different, what thinking
made
us wish to punish people for using plants, etc. ... but someday we will
have to return to sanity and tell the control freaks to mind their own
business and quit locking up people for using plants and committing no
other crime(s.) For one thing, we simply can't afford it, never could,
really ...

Regards,
JS

Some of the Marijuana Growers in the Northern
California Sierra Foothills have also been
trying to grow Coca Plants on Federal Lands.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca
.

Well, I definently don't like the "high" of marijuana, but coca is so
much like coffee as a pick me up that I can see real value in it ...
indeed, I believe coca-cola used to actually contain cocaine ...

It wasn't until this century began that drugs were illegal ... I can
remember that my grandmother still had supplies of opium and cocaine and
guarded them religiously ... doling them out for a toothache here,
someones insomnia here, etc.

The original argument, why to make drugs illegal, was basically that
people were duped into becoming addicted and supporting the "medicine
show man" selling his "tonics."

Well, times have a changed, everyone knows about drugs ... we can
decriminalize them now ... the only people who will become addicted are
those who wish to ... no one is going to be duped into it ...

Any substance is somehow a drug. So let's talk about narcotics - maybe.

If you consider all the suffering related to these drugs: mental and
health problems, loosing jobs, families and friends, a LOT of money and
possibly life. So warnings should be there. But it's not really a
question of the law and criminal investigation, if someone is taking
these substances.

On the other hand, this is not wanted neither, because consume has
negative side effects. But making this stuff illegal and consume a crime
makes matters much worse, since the addiction cannot be properly
treated, the stuff is mixed with any kind of toxins and the price for
the dose is getting very high, what inevitable leads to related crimes.

This is all a great big ugly mess. Most countries do not really solve
these problems, but have half-baked programs, that can make matters even
worse.

So people should start to think it over and calculate the benefits
against the costs and find a possible solution.

A solution would be a cure of addiction. Sounds like a silly proposal,
but there are certain therapies, that seem to work and are seldom used:

One way stems from Israel and that was to sedate the addictive person
during the detoxification.
Another way use a specific drug, but I forgot the name. It was kind of
hallucinogen plant from Westafrica.
The substitution with methadone seems to create more problems than it
solves, what leave the controlled hand out of the real drug.

something else:
this thread has still the title ' Small gun, the serious protection
you need ...' and is posted to 'rec.sport.golf' ;-)

Greetings

TH

In the end, all I see left on the table, once the BS is wiped up, is
control freaks and crooks ...

Or, simply, those who do not get a reward from controlling others, or
are making no profit from drugs being illegal, simply have no interest
in consuming billion or even trillions of tax payer dollars to imprison,
otherwise, law abiding citizens ...

Unless some other crime is committed, the simple act of consuming a drug
(or narcotic, specifically) is simply a victimless crime ... and
certainly NOT WORTH PAYING $40,000+ USD to punish someone for (lock them
in a prison) ... besides, it only ends up, really, punishing the tax
payers and society at large ... but, if you are not making any money off
of the drugs themselves, exploiting the American tax payer for your
paycheck is yet another option (paid public servant, policing authority,
court employee, etc.)

All of this punishment, criminalization and illegality of drugs does is
"put fleas on the tax payers back", to suck 'em dry ...

Regards,
JS

Germany Unity Day
http://www.rense.com
cuhulin

On Oct 10, 5:13*pm, (J R) wrote:
- Germany Unity Day
- http://www.rense.com
- cuhulin

Deutsches Eck
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsches_Eck

Am 10.10.2011 22:37, schrieb John Smith:
On 10/10/2011 10:48 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 10.10.2011 07:29, schrieb John Smith:
On 10/8/2011 7:26 PM, RHF wrote:
On Oct 8, 5:39 pm, John wrote:
On 10/8/2011 5:13 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
...


It wasn't until this century began that drugs were illegal ... I can
remember that my grandmother still had supplies of opium and cocaine and
guarded them religiously ... doling them out for a toothache here,
someones insomnia here, etc.

The original argument, why to make drugs illegal, was basically that
people were duped into becoming addicted and supporting the "medicine
show man" selling his "tonics."

Well, times have a changed, everyone knows about drugs ... we can
decriminalize them now ... the only people who will become addicted are
those who wish to ... no one is going to be duped into it ...

Any substance is somehow a drug. So let's talk about narcotics - maybe.

If you consider all the suffering related to these drugs: mental and
health problems, loosing jobs, families and friends, a LOT of money and
possibly life. So warnings should be there. But it's not really a
question of the law and criminal investigation, if someone is taking
these substances.

On the other hand, this is not wanted neither, because consume has
negative side effects. But making this stuff illegal and consume a crime
makes matters much worse, since the addiction cannot be properly
treated, the stuff is mixed with any kind of toxins and the price for
the dose is getting very high, what inevitable leads to related crimes.

This is all a great big ugly mess. Most countries do not really solve
these problems, but have half-baked programs, that can make matters even
worse.

So people should start to think it over and calculate the benefits
against the costs and find a possible solution.

...



In the end, all I see left on the table, once the BS is wiped up, is
control freaks and crooks ...

Or, simply, those who do not get a reward from controlling others, or
are making no profit from drugs being illegal, simply have no interest
in consuming billion or even trillions of tax payer dollars to imprison,
otherwise, law abiding citizens ...

Unless some other crime is committed, the simple act of consuming a drug
(or narcotic, specifically) is simply a victimless crime ... and
certainly NOT WORTH PAYING $40,000+ USD to punish someone for (lock them
in a prison) ... besides, it only ends up, really, punishing the tax
payers and society at large ... but, if you are not making any money off
of the drugs themselves, exploiting the American tax payer for your
paycheck is yet another option (paid public servant, policing authority,
court employee, etc.)

All of this punishment, criminalization and illegality of drugs does is
"put fleas on the tax payers back", to suck 'em dry ...


You still don't see the entire scale of the problem.
The prison is only the 'tip of the iceberg'. But try to imagine all the
other negative side effects.

E.g. the addictive person steals a car, for example yours. To get you
out off the car, he points a gun at you. Now we have some sort of
extreme situation, but lets imagine you are rescued by somebody, that
shoots at the criminal.

Now we have a person under shock and a badly injured criminal and the
police has a lot of work. The costs here are not only, what all these
people earn (policemen, hospital, prison wards, lawyers, ambulance
drivers and so forth), but somehow the negative effects on quality of
life, what has a value, too.

Streetlife has a value. That is the possibility to use public spaces
without fear. If you are afraid of being ripped off, than your
possibilities are reduced.

The reduction of personal liberties, due to the 'war on drugs' is also
worth to mention.

Then income goes into generally wrong canals, because large revenues are
made through means, that are against the society in general. That income
attracts young people and guides them away from useful work into drug
related 'business'. This money feeds the criminals and let them use that
income, to finance other unwanted activities.

E.g. that money enables them, to bribe and corrupt officials, policemen
or politicians. These people can do real damage, if they don't function
like intended.

TH

"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...
Am 10.10.2011 22:37, schrieb John Smith:
On 10/10/2011 10:48 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 10.10.2011 07:29, schrieb John Smith:
On 10/8/2011 7:26 PM, RHF wrote:
On Oct 8, 5:39 pm, John wrote:
On 10/8/2011 5:13 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
..


It wasn't until this century began that drugs were illegal ... I can
remember that my grandmother still had supplies of opium and cocaine
and
guarded them religiously ... doling them out for a toothache here,
someones insomnia here, etc.

The original argument, why to make drugs illegal, was basically that
people were duped into becoming addicted and supporting the "medicine
show man" selling his "tonics."

Well, times have a changed, everyone knows about drugs ... we can
decriminalize them now ... the only people who will become addicted are
those who wish to ... no one is going to be duped into it ...

Any substance is somehow a drug. So let's talk about narcotics - maybe.

If you consider all the suffering related to these drugs: mental and
health problems, loosing jobs, families and friends, a LOT of money and
possibly life. So warnings should be there. But it's not really a
question of the law and criminal investigation, if someone is taking
these substances.

On the other hand, this is not wanted neither, because consume has
negative side effects. But making this stuff illegal and consume a crime
makes matters much worse, since the addiction cannot be properly
treated, the stuff is mixed with any kind of toxins and the price for
the dose is getting very high, what inevitable leads to related crimes.

This is all a great big ugly mess. Most countries do not really solve
these problems, but have half-baked programs, that can make matters even
worse.

So people should start to think it over and calculate the benefits
against the costs and find a possible solution.

..



In the end, all I see left on the table, once the BS is wiped up, is
control freaks and crooks ...

Or, simply, those who do not get a reward from controlling others, or
are making no profit from drugs being illegal, simply have no interest
in consuming billion or even trillions of tax payer dollars to imprison,
otherwise, law abiding citizens ...

Unless some other crime is committed, the simple act of consuming a drug
(or narcotic, specifically) is simply a victimless crime ... and
certainly NOT WORTH PAYING $40,000+ USD to punish someone for (lock them
in a prison) ... besides, it only ends up, really, punishing the tax
payers and society at large ... but, if you are not making any money off
of the drugs themselves, exploiting the American tax payer for your
paycheck is yet another option (paid public servant, policing authority,
court employee, etc.)

All of this punishment, criminalization and illegality of drugs does is
"put fleas on the tax payers back", to suck 'em dry ...


You still don't see the entire scale of the problem.
The prison is only the 'tip of the iceberg'. But try to imagine all the
other negative side effects.


And you are only focused on the "negative side effects" and ignore any of
the positives

E.g. the addictive person steals a car, for example yours. To get you out
off the car, he points a gun at you. Now we have some sort of extreme
situation, but lets imagine you are rescued by somebody, that shoots at
the criminal.


1) Very few addicts bother getting guns. They are too busy using what
wealth they have to pay for drugs.
2) Very few addicts do car-jackings. They are far more occupied with
scoring and enjoying the high.
3) Why should someone else rescue me, when I can put a bullet in the
car-jacking druggie, the moment I get a chance
4) If I pull my gun, I will most likely unload it into the druggie, to
make sure he's not a threat any more
5) I may be "in shock" after the shooting, but I'm alive and still have
my car.
6) The druggie is dead.
7) The police have little to do except advise the DA that it was a good
shoot.
Problem solved

Now we have a person under shock and a badly injured criminal and the
police has a lot of work. The costs here are not only, what all these
people earn (policemen, hospital, prison wards, lawyers, ambulance drivers
and so forth), but somehow the negative effects on quality of life, what
has a value, too.


That's only true in your worst-case scenario
IN the alternate scenario with a dead carjacking druggie, the only costs are
1) hauling off the body to the morgue
2) Autopsy
3) police filing a good shoot report
4) buying ammo to replace what was used.



Streetlife has a value. That is the possibility to use public spaces
without fear. If you are afraid of being ripped off, than your
possibilities are reduced.


And the reverse, is that if there are armed citizens, street scum are less
apt to try to rip off people since the thing they fear the MOST, ABOVE ALL
ELSE, is an ARMED CITIZEN

The reduction of personal liberties, due to the 'war on drugs' is also
worth to mention.


Change of subject noted


Then income goes into generally wrong canals, because large revenues are
made through means, that are against the society in general. That income
attracts young people and guides them away from useful work into drug
related 'business'. This money feeds the criminals and let them use that
income, to finance other unwanted activities.

E.g. that money enables them, to bribe and corrupt officials, policemen or
politicians. These people can do real damage, if they don't function like
intended.



Don't disagree with you there
Prohibitions of any kind tend to
1) fail badly
2) result in unintended and usually negative side-effects.

Am 11.10.2011 18:50, schrieb SaPeIsMa:

...

You still don't see the entire scale of the problem.
The prison is only the 'tip of the iceberg'. But try to imagine all
the other negative side effects.


And you are only focused on the "negative side effects" and ignore any
of the positives

E.g. the addictive person steals a car, for example yours. To get you
out off the car, he points a gun at you. Now we have some sort of
extreme situation, but lets imagine you are rescued by somebody, that
shoots at the criminal.


1) Very few addicts bother getting guns. They are too busy using what
wealth they have to pay for drugs.
2) Very few addicts do car-jackings. They are far more occupied with
scoring and enjoying the high.
3) Why should someone else rescue me, when I can put a bullet in the
car-jacking druggie, the moment I get a chance
4) If I pull my gun, I will most likely unload it into the druggie, to
make sure he's not a threat any more
5) I may be "in shock" after the shooting, but I'm alive and still have
my car.
6) The druggie is dead.
7) The police have little to do except advise the DA that it was a good
shoot.
Problem solved


It was an example. But I have the impression, it was at least a little
realistic.

BTW: In Germany we don't have 'carjacking'. Didn't know that word, but
heard of such crimes.

The reason is a typical German speciality within the system of civil
laws, because we have a distinction between ownership ('Eigentum') and
possession ('Besitz').
The physical control ('Besitz') doesn't help much, because it is only
possession of a stolen car. To get ownership, you need a special
certificate of ownership ('Kraftfahrzeugbrief') , what is usually stored
in a safe place.
Armed street robbery is not very common here, too. (Actually I don't
know the reason for that.)

Now we have a person under shock and a badly injured criminal and the
police has a lot of work. The costs here are not only, what all these
people earn (policemen, hospital, prison wards, lawyers, ambulance
drivers and so forth), but somehow the negative effects on quality of
life, what has a value, too.


That's only true in your worst-case scenario
IN the alternate scenario with a dead carjacking druggie, the only costs
are
1) hauling off the body to the morgue
2) Autopsy
3) police filing a good shoot report
4) buying ammo to replace what was used.



The term 'cost' is used in economy differently to how the word is
commonly used. 'Cost' means the value of the items used in measures of
currency.

For example the use of a machine belongs to costs, even if the machine
is already paid.

Imagine all the money, the American taxpayer pay. Pile that up in coins.
That is a HUGE pile.

Thats what you have (the American people).

Than you take HUGE caterpillars to grab the money for the military, the
various agencies, the government, schools, wellfare, streets and so forth.

What is left isn't a mountain, but still a hill. This is for the nicer
things.

If you use money from this pile, than the nicer things are reduced,
because that money is spent for something else.

The cost is now not the money spent, but the reduction of things you like.

E.g. a prison adds nothing to pleasure and beauty, but a new - say -
stadium would.

Than the cost of that prison is (besides - say - 10 mio $) one stadium.


Streetlife has a value. That is the possibility to use public spaces
without fear. If you are afraid of being ripped off, than your
possibilities are reduced.


And the reverse, is that if there are armed citizens, street scum are
less apt to try to rip off people since the thing they fear the MOST,
ABOVE ALL ELSE, is an ARMED CITIZEN

Actually I think, what they fear most is the pain from having no drugs.
Next is the police and than - maybe - citizens.
Certain drugs reduce the ability to think rational to some extend, what
would make such people act like psychos. There is no way to deal with
such persons in a rational way. You would need to sedate them -maybe-
and take them to a hospital.

Another subject are homeless people. These would possibly fall into your
category, too, even if this is quite unfair.

Homeless people are a threat to the public health, because a person
needs a shelter and occasional possibility to have a shower (or alike).
A homeless person is not a criminal, but could spread diseases, because
the person has to live outside.

The reduction of personal liberties, due to the 'war on drugs' is also
worth to mention.


Change of subject noted


Same with such thing as 'liberties'. Liberties certainly belong to the
nicer things, you like to have.

If you give up certain rights to achieve a certain effect, than this
right, you don't possess any more, belongs to the costs.

If you had to give up the right to - say - ride a horse, than loosing
this right reduces your possibilities. You can say: I never rides
horses, but some people do. So, the 'pain' of others counts, too.

Then income goes into generally wrong canals, because large revenues
are made through means, that are against the society in general. That
income attracts young people and guides them away from useful work
into drug related 'business'. This money feeds the criminals and let
them use that income, to finance other unwanted activities.

E.g. that money enables them, to bribe and corrupt officials,
policemen or politicians. These people can do real damage, if they
don't function like intended.



Don't disagree with you there
Prohibitions of any kind tend to
1) fail badly
2) result in unintended and usually negative side-effects.

Agree with you here, too.


Greetings

Thomas

"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...
Am 11.10.2011 18:50, schrieb SaPeIsMa:

..

You still don't see the entire scale of the problem.
The prison is only the 'tip of the iceberg'. But try to imagine all
the other negative side effects.


And you are only focused on the "negative side effects" and ignore any
of the positives

E.g. the addictive person steals a car, for example yours. To get you
out off the car, he points a gun at you. Now we have some sort of
extreme situation, but lets imagine you are rescued by somebody, that
shoots at the criminal.


1) Very few addicts bother getting guns. They are too busy using what
wealth they have to pay for drugs.
2) Very few addicts do car-jackings. They are far more occupied with
scoring and enjoying the high.
3) Why should someone else rescue me, when I can put a bullet in the
car-jacking druggie, the moment I get a chance
4) If I pull my gun, I will most likely unload it into the druggie, to
make sure he's not a threat any more
5) I may be "in shock" after the shooting, but I'm alive and still have
my car.
6) The druggie is dead.
7) The police have little to do except advise the DA that it was a good
shoot.
Problem solved


It was an example. But I have the impression, it was at least a little
realistic.


Sure
With VERY HEAVY emphasis on "least"..
:-)

BTW: In Germany we don't have 'carjacking'. Didn't know that word, but
heard of such crimes.


I'm sure that it's happened a few times.
It's basically someone coming up to you sitting in your car and evicting you
forcibly from it to steal your car.

The reason is a typical German speciality within the system of civil laws,
because we have a distinction between ownership ('Eigentum') and
possession ('Besitz').
The physical control ('Besitz') doesn't help much, because it is only
possession of a stolen car. To get ownership, you need a special
certificate of ownership ('Kraftfahrzeugbrief') , what is usually stored
in a safe place.

And you presume that we don't understand the differnce ?
If you borrow my car, you have possession of it, while I still remain
the owner
In the same way, if you carjack me, you have possession, while I still
have ownership.
This is not a concept unique to Germany, bub..


Armed street robbery is not very common here, too. (Actually I don't know
the reason for that.)


Mostly cultural
In the US most of the street crime is attributed to young black and hispanic
males
Although they represent a very small percentage of the population, they have
a inordinately high crime rate in just about all the categories. For
examples they are 7 times more likely to be murdered and 5 times more likely
to commit murder than any other group in US society.
If you take the statistical anomaly that they create in US crime statistics,
the US would rank below Canada overall.


Now we have a person under shock and a badly injured criminal and the
police has a lot of work. The costs here are not only, what all these
people earn (policemen, hospital, prison wards, lawyers, ambulance
drivers and so forth), but somehow the negative effects on quality of
life, what has a value, too.


That's only true in your worst-case scenario
IN the alternate scenario with a dead carjacking druggie, the only costs
are
1) hauling off the body to the morgue
2) Autopsy
3) police filing a good shoot report
4) buying ammo to replace what was used.



The term 'cost' is used in economy differently to how the word is commonly
used. 'Cost' means the value of the items used in measures of currency.


Stop being a pontificating dweeb
Most intelligent people know the multiple meanings of the word cost.


redundant pontification snipped

E.g. a prison adds nothing to pleasure and beauty, but a new - say -
stadium would.


That would depend on the design of both the prison and the stadium
And the social benefit of locking up criminals far outweighs the social
benefit of a stadium that is empty most of the time.


Than the cost of that prison is (besides - say - 10 mio $) one stadium.


After all the bull**** about the various meanings of "cost", you forget to
consider the various meanings of "benefits"

Smarten up, bub..



Streetlife has a value. That is the possibility to use public spaces
without fear. If you are afraid of being ripped off, than your
possibilities are reduced.


And the reverse, is that if there are armed citizens, street scum are
less apt to try to rip off people since the thing they fear the MOST,
ABOVE ALL ELSE, is an ARMED CITIZEN

Actually I think, what they fear most is the pain from having no drugs.
Next is the police and than - maybe - citizens.

BZZT
Wrong again
Research proves you wrong

Maybe YOU need to do a bit more research before you continue demonstrating
that you confuse presumption with knowledge...


snip more silly pontification



The reduction of personal liberties, due to the 'war on drugs' is also
worth to mention.


Change of subject noted


Same with such thing as 'liberties'. Liberties certainly belong to the
nicer things, you like to have.


And yet, most people are completely unaware of how easily and often they are
trampled by those in power
And many times with the excuse that it's for your own good..

I think Smith & Wesson makes some 50 Calibre Shootin Irons/Pistols.
Get a Bigger Badda Boom Boom!
cuhulin

Everything is just peachy keen in Germany, eh? NYET!

Watchin one of the local yokel back water hick tee vee stations here
enema Jacksonnnnnnn, Missy Sippy, WLBT 3 tee vee noos at 4:00 PM.
http://www.WLBT.com
http://www.WJTV.com
http://www.WAPT.com

Firebomb Attacks in Berlin, (I didn't say Berlin,New Hampshire
U.S.A.either)
There have been other Firebomb Attacks in Berlin,Germany since last
Monday, protesting Germany's role in Afghanistan.According to local
yokel backwater hick Missy Sippy tee vee noos.
cuhulin