CodyTalks at the...
140 conference smalltown 2011

"We Teach Them to Drive"

Read more
CodyTalks Public Speaking

CodyTalks Radio Show
Sundays at 7a.m. CST - Wednesdays at 10:30a.m. CST

Hot topics going on in your area

Read more
CodyTalks Radio Show

CodyTalks at the...
140 conference NYC 2011

"How the Internet is like a Small Town"
...Twitter is coffee shop of the world... the whole world can now know about the good or bad thing you did just like it's always happened at the small town coffee shop.

Read more
CodyTalks Public Speaking

Gun Control, Concealed Carry and Me.

pic is "suppossedly" of Charlton Heston's personal gun vault. Before you call it any crazy type of adjective, (riduclous, insane, who needs that many guns!!) Consider this, he was a collector, and his gun collection killed or hurt the exact same amount of people that my son's coin collection has.


A great friend of mine sent me an email the other day asking my opinion of concealed carry and my thoughts on the safety /instructional class. The exact same day another great friend of mine posted a Facebook status thanking the Supreme Court for allow the citizens of Washington DC to continue to own AK-47s, I am paraphrasing there. Knowing the second friend, safe to say the sarcasm actually probably clogged Facebook up for a while.

Short history of me and guns. I was raised around guns, they were always a part of my life. I hunted with my Dad really as far back as I can remember and the majority of my greatest memories of childhood with my Dad either involve athletics or hunting/fishing. We weren't what I would call radical gun owners... we had hunting guns, there were other guns in the house because my Dad has been in Law Enforcement since Wyatt Earp worked around here but I was really only exposed to hunting firearms. Then I went and spent 4 years as a Sniper in the Marine Corps, don't think that applies here but I wanted it out in the open. Ok so guns are an important part of my personal history.

All of that being said, here's my stance: It doesn't matter what my stance is!

Do I really think people need an AK-47 in their house, absolutely not, no way they need it. But they have the right to have one. People don't need swords, they don't need cars that go 200mph, they don't need to climb Mt Everest and the don't need to fly in airplanes... To sustain life, NEED! They don't need i-phones, they don't need Starbucks and they don't need whiskey or wine. They don't need Model airplane glue, they don't needpseudofed (we lived without it) They don't need Anhydrous Ammonia (the wheat grew before we used it) they don't need Fresh Lobster at the local grocery store.

To enter into a Gun argument with the statement "Who needs an AK-47 in their house?" is a dumb and moot point... That is not what Gun Rights is about.

The other point that I will not concede on is "Guns do not kill people" I know that statement is abused beyond all other statements. I know we all get tired of hearing it. But it's true. Cars, Guns, Knives, Drugs, Cell Phones. Bombs, Cigarettes,Nail guns, Tanks, and Commercial Airliners do not kill people. People kill people.

Should there be some forms of Gun Control? Absolutely, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the right to bear arms does not mean the right to buy an AK otc at WalMart ! If everyone involved could agree that what we are arguing is how to perform background checks and the laws governing licensing and requirements, then this debate could be productive and insightful . They can't. Both sides are too extreme and any dialogue disintegrates and both sides end up going on the defensive and then they attack.

Here's my stance. If someone wants to own any sort of a firearm they should have that right... If the meet certain criteria set forth by our government. That criteria must be fair and concise and have the ability to evolve. Period that's it. As soon as they break a law with it, throw the damn book at them. A consequence of living in our country is our Law Enforcement, sometimes, has to be reactive or you trample rights!!!!

Here's the problem and why it will never happen. Someone will always be pushing from both sides. The antis and the pro guns are selfish and always push for more or less.

What if both sides said... "Ok, the Supreme Court just came down and said this blah, blah, blah.., let's roll with it. Let's say we got it all laid out and that's what we are gonna deal with" Does that mean we stop trying to prevent gun violence? Of course not. We just stop making more and more confusing laws that have done zero to prevent Gun violence/accidents.

It's the same argument as I laid down here about Abortion. Abortion is legal, stop spending millions of dollars to legislate away a right. Spend that money, time and effort to actually reduce the number of abortions. Gun ownership is legal, stop spending millions of dollars to legislate away a right. Spending that time, money and effort to actually reduce gun violence.

It truly does amaze me they way our traditional 2 parties switch on those two issues. On one issue one side is adamant about legislating away a right and the other is willing fight to the death for it. Switch issues and now the other side wants to legislate away a right and the other will fight to the death for it. You don't even know which order I was talking about the issues there.

Anyhow my solution on gun control... drop the extremism on both sides, stop trying to legislate, stop picking your Presidential Candidate and other politicians based on it. Shit, stop arguing the legislation on it, start taking all that effort, and BILLIONS of dollars and join forces to reduce gun violence and accidents. Bot sides have to do it, not the quirky radicals in the trenches, they will keep being quirky radicals in the trenches... The leaders, they have to get together and say... "We are on the same team, we both want the same thing" Less Gun violence and accidents. That's is the goal of both sides. It should be.


Concealed Carry.

Exact same argument. It is legal, personally I think it should be legal, it should be properly permitted and governed, which it is. You should be forced to take and pass a class, which you are, you should be subject to scrutiny and background checks, which you are.

I don't think I'll ever get a concealed carry permit... I don't want one.. I'll never get a Airliner, Tank, smoke a cigarette, have an abortion, or own car that will go 200 mph. Those things don't kill people though and neither does a concealed carry permit, people being involved with those things do sometimes kill people.

My last statement is this, I am asking everyone who comments on this post, if any do, to end their comment with one sentence on how they feel about legalizing marijuana. PLEASE!? One sentence, don't get into the argument, just your vote we will discuss it later.

Very Cool Hutchinson, Ks 4th of July Parade pics here

32 comments:

  1. I think you summed it up pretty well. I have a hard time arguing against something in the Bill of Rights. How do we deal with guns sold on the black market? I don't have any stats, but I'm pretty sure most of the guns involved in gun violence aren't being fired by their rightful, legal owner.

    Marijuana-
    I think it should be 100% legal, 100% regulated, and 100% taxed into the ground.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think if they're intentions are completely legal and they meet whatever criteria they need to do so, let them carry a gun.
    Though I don't personally understand the mentality.

    Live and let live, right?

    I've read stats about how most of the ones used in crime are obtained illegally. I think if the crazies that think all guns should be illegal and the crazies that believe they should be able to mount a 50 caliber on their Honda Accord could just get together and work on that issue, rather than infringing on one another's freedoms, something good could happen.

    I think if Marijuana should be legal, regulate and taxed as well. It would probably result in less perceived need for guns, too, what with the laziness and the fact that it would kill a huge chunk of the drug market.

    ReplyDelete
  3. As long as people go through the appropriate channels to get a gun and concealed a gun, I have no issues. Unfortunately, people that want to use a gun for illegal purposes are not going to go through those channels. If the government wants to do something, then they need to enforce stricter penalties for gun related violence. Then even make the penalties more severe if they don't have a permit.

    Marijuana should be legal. Regulate it like cigarettes and alcohol. Additionally, the drinking age should be lowered to 18.

    ReplyDelete
  4. A few things.

    1. Cody, you can't start a blog topic by advocating a common-sense, middle-of-the-road approach to a controversial topic. All we do then is argue degrees of reasonableness, which is boring. Or take the position of a person that is, according to you, and extremist.

    2. I absolutely love that Cody, Scott, Mitchell, Lizale, who all argued so vehemently against government intervention in our lives want guns (and marijuana) tightly controlled. Let me get this straight. The government wants to do an analysis of discrimination practices of a potentially public business and everyone freaks out, but if the government wants to regulate gun ownership that's a-ok? Cody "I vote republican because I want the least government intervention in my life" Heitschmidt think that there should "absolutely, without a shadow of a doubt" be stricter gun regulations. Don't any of you know how expensive gun laws are??

    3. Guns don't kill people, people kill people is one of the dumbest pieces of spin I have ever read. People that want to kill people have a much easier time doing it if they have a gun.

    4. There is no doubt in my mind that as gun ownership goes down, so does the murder rate. Less guns equals less murders. Europe, which for the most part outlaws handguns, has murder rates consistently below 1 per 100,000 people. The US rate is five times that. If lawmakers wanted less people dying on their watch, they would outlaw handguns.

    5. The second amendment right to bear arms isn't as cut and dried as people would like to believe it to be. Maybe Dave will give us some analysis.

    6. The gun control debate should have little to do with hunters. Hunters should be able to obtain permits for their guns and hunt. No problem there.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Well said Nate

    ReplyDelete
  6. Guns don't kill people......................bullets kill people. They come at you so fast.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Nate,

    1. The whole contention of my "I am right and you are wrong" philosophy is the middle of the road common sense approach, or lack there of is the problem with our 2 party system and a huge hindrance to progress.

    That being said... I can do it because I know you (or Billdodobird esq.) will come in take a side a spice it up. I think you stance in points 2-6 (minus #5)is extremist and un-realistic.

    2. You have this ability to throw extra words in to make me seem extremist. You say I want guns and marijuana "TIGHTLY" controlled. When did I say tightly on either example. Taking words and making the stance of another seem more drastic or ridiculous is the problem. I said they should be controlled that is just common sense, almost everything requires some sort of regulation. Then you throw in that I said there should be "STRICTER" gun regulations. Why the hell are you putting words into my mouth. I am completely satisfied with current gun regs. think they are fair and continuing to legislate more is a waste of time. Jesus that was the point of my post.

    3. No doubt that killing someone is easier if you have a gun. But that's not a reason for legislation. It's also easier to run from the cops if you have a car and easier commit arson if you have gasoline and matches and easier stab someone if you have a kitchen knife. Dumb argument. The ability of an object to inflict harm should not make that object illegal to own/obtain. Someone using any object to inflict harm on someone in a criminal manner, that's an illegal act. Acts should be illegal, not objects.

    4. I dont know the stats... i refer to number three cause I am ignorant on these stats. No cars = no vehicle deaths as well.

    5. I completely agree with number 5 I don't think the second amendment gives the right to buy ak 47 over the counter at WalMart.

    6. This is the dumbest of your points... Detail this out for me. Hunters can have them? Whats a hunter? who's a hunter? who decides? How do you enforce? Why do they get special stuff/privileges?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Mr underhill snuck 2 in while I was typing. They made me grin.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Nate,

    If all the world had to argue about was "Degrees of Reasonableness" wouldn't that mean we were closer to a resolution??

    I know you are saying that it makes boring arguments and I agree but that thought just popped into my head.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Nice, now we have something going...

    First things first. I was being tongue in cheek on your middle-of-the-road post. You've taken a more controversial stance on other issues, which makes for better arguing.

    Get over this “tightly” nonsense. I was referring to not just you, but a group of people AND I quoted you when referencing your stance directly AND I called your stance reasonable, not extremist.

    The acts should be illegal, not objects argument is interesting. There is certainly a debate to be had there. I would argue that some objects that when used only bring about illegal acts should certainly be illegal themselves. I doubt that you would argue that owning nuclear warheads should be legal, but setting them off illegal. Guns are a tricky case. Discharging a gun, for non-sport reasons, is almost always illegal (minus self defense). Comparing them to knives, or cars, which are almost always used legally, is a little tenuous to me.

    You say that you are completely happy with current gun regulations. You are completely happy now, or were you completely happy two weeks ago, before the SC overturned the DC handgun ban? It's not good enough to just say you are happy with the existing system. It's in flux, especially lately.

    Finally, give be a break on the hunting “dumbest point” line. Hunters don't hunt with handguns or AK-47's. They hunt with rifles and shotguns. If you are a hunter, and you have a hunting permit, and you want to own a rifle or shotgun for hunting purposes, I am all for working that out, even if handguns are illegal. Countries that ban handguns make exceptions for hunters.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I don't remember arguing vehemently against government intervention, but I don't have time to go back and see, so I spose it doesn't matter enough.

    I think the government should be more involved in things that leave people dead than things that keep old ladies from being able to have a beverage with their husband.

    I think marijuana should be legal because I don't think it causes any more problems than cigarettes or alcohol, and I like the idea of using it to perhaps cover some of the expenses created by gun laws and discrimination analyses.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I will let the tightly thing go, that over dramatizing of peoples comments is a big part of the problem, ok now i will let it go.

    Nukes go under the same premise... No shit. If you are properly licensed and follow the rules... you get nukes. Thats the way it is. Nukes are illegal. People have them... They are a legal object to have if you are licensed.Licensing and regulations are a bitch, but the possession of them is not illegal. Killing people with them in a criminal way, thats the bad thing, not the nuke itself. The only way unlicnesed people get nukes is blackmarket, no excuse for that it's criminal, we all agree... same with guns. Objects shouldn't be illegal! I stand by that. Acts are illegal.

    My point on being happy with the current system is we need to quit changing it and attacking the problem from a legislative standpoint that changes the system constantly. You emphasize my point by questioning it, we spend all this damn time refining the laws while none of it does any good. Stop legislating it. We have laws in place, enforce them and go after bad guys and teach safety and stop falling back on more laws as the answer. It doesn't work. Prohibition, The WAR on Drugs, you can't legislate these things as the only answer.

    You hunters argument is ridiculous. If you come out and say hunters just get their permits and hunt and everyone else has different rules, everyone will become a hunter. You CAN right now just walk into Walmart and buy a hunting license and boom, your a hunter. Some hunters can and do use assault rifles for hunting, not full auto AK 47's (legally) but assault rifles as defined by law. You can't start separating out different types of law-abiding citizens.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Well, that's where you and I are different. I am against private citizens owning nuclear weaponry.

    ReplyDelete
  14. There is a lot going on in this post and thread, first I will address some general gun control things and the recent decision, then in another post I will address some specific comments made.

    First of, I believe that the Second Amendment right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. I do not think that the Second Amendment confers an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons, nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration.

    That being said, the majority of the Supreme Court had the NERVE to disagree with the likes of me. The Court invalidated a D.C. law that bans private handgun possession and requires long guns (rifles and shotguns) to be stored either disassembled or under trigger lock.

    The majority opinion by Justice Scalia expressed no doubt that the Second Amendment was originally understood to recognize a personal right (that is, not simply a right to use a gun while part of a militia). The four dissenters, contrarily, agreed with me and thought the meaning of the Second Amendment was clear, although they thought it clearly did not protect the possession or use of firearms outside the context of military service.

    All nine Justices agreed that a wide variety of gun laws are presumptively constitutional, including restrictions on carrying concealed weapons, guns in schools and other sensitive places, and bans on "dangerous and unusual" weapons. This I do not understand...why is a ban on handguns in DC Unconstitutional, while perhaps a ban on Assault weapons would survive scrutiny. Why, for crying out loud did the Court find that a law requiring TRIGGER LOCKS (a reasonable regulation) was prohibited under the 2nd Amendment while other restrictions would likely will not be (like grenade launchers, felons owning guns, etc.)? Where is the line, and what in the 2nd amendment draws that line....either they can be regulated or they can't.

    The question the Court left open with little to NO guidance, not whether to restrict arms ownership, but how much to restrict it. If that is a question left open by the Constitution, then it is a question for legislatures to decide, not the Courts. The Court's failure to provide any real clues as to what are permissible government restrictions on gun owners will simply lead to more litigation.
    That is the problem, I may think that requiring guns to be stored with a trigger locks is a reasonable regulation, while others (like the Supreme Court) may not. I may think a ban on handguns is reasonable, while another (again, the Supreme Court) may not. I may think that a ban on private citizens owning nuclear weapons is reasonable, while another may not. Same with Felon ownership of firearms. The Court left this ALL open…only finding unconstitutional bans on handgun possession and requiring long guns (rifles and shotguns) to be stored either disassembled or under trigger lock. The rest of the myriad of gun regulations banning concealed carry, banning felons from owning firearms, bans on machine, sawed off shotguns, hand grenades, etc., are now completely up in the air.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Quick direct response.

    Cody stated that his stance is that if “someone wants to own any sort of a firearm they should have that right. If the meet certain criteria set forth by our government. That criteria must be fair and concise and have the ability to evolve.” That is all well and good, but the problem is, Cody, what I or the citizens of DC may think is fair and concise may not be what you, Justice Scalia, or the Citizens of Kansas think is fair and concise. I think allowing citizens to own a rifle to store it dissassembled or with a trigger lock would be reasonable, and does not prevent ownership. Cody, would you agree? The Supreme Court doesn’t.

    Prior to this blog thread, and a position Cody argued, I would have assumed that even people supportive of the Supreme Court’s decision and Gun Rights would concede that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual's right to own bazookas, missiles or nuclear warheads. Yet these, like rifles, pistols and even submachine guns, are arms. I guess I was naïve to think that.

    I also have to disagree with Cody’s comparison of a AK-47 to a vehicle or jet airliner. The function of a firearm, ultimately is to kill or cause damage(although it can be used as a deterrent or for target practice) while the purpose of a jet airliner or car is transportation, ( although can kill if used improperly or an accident).

    Cody also states that regarding concealed carry, that he has the “exact same argument.” I don’t understand that. Your first argument said that nothing should prevent OWNERSHIP, but you have to meet a criteria set out by the government. What if that criteria is that you can’t carry it around with you concealed? Is that ok? It doesn’t prevent ownership, but merely prevents how you can use it, like a highway speed limit.

    Also, I have to correct Cody’s statement that “it should be properly permitted and governed, which it is.” First off, it is not legal, at least not in DC. Is it ok for DC to now allow ownership of handguns but not allow people to conceal them and carry them around?

    Also...I got no problem with reasonable regulation of weed.

    ReplyDelete
  16. We were stationed in DC from 1992 until 1998 and never even heard there was a handgun ban there.

    You wouldn't have known it. There were guns everywhere. The articles in the newspaper said the gun runners would drive down to Richmond, Virginia and buy hundreds of guns at a time, no waiting period, no limit on how many guns you could buy at one time and then drive them up the Interstate into DC and on up into Baltimore and NYC.

    Obviously the ban failed in it's purpose. When we lived there it was the murder capital of the U.S.

    Since then things have improved in DC but it wasn't gun control that did it. It was re-gentrification of previously horrible neighborhoods.

    I'm for limiting the number of guns you can buy during a given period. I don't think you can make the "self-protection" argument past one gun at a time. Maybe it should be two guns for those folks who go to gun shows but it definitely shouldn't be 50 or 100 at a time.

    Cody briefly mentioned abortion. IMHO, Roe vs. Wade should be reversed because it's unconstitutional. It's also a dangerous, dangerous precedent to have morality decided on a national level. Our federal government had no business doing so and who knows what the next issue they decide to dictate nationally would be - could be from either side of the political aisle. It's just bad form.

    Give it back to the states where it lies Constitutionally and let it go through the legal systems closer to "we, the people" as it was always intended.

    Marijuana - should stay illegal. There was a town I was reading about just a couple of months ago that legalized it for medical use. Doctors handed out medical use permits to almost everyone in town. Now that place has the highest robbery and home invasion level around. Now they are working to reverse it.

    Then there's the whole thing of people driving stoned. Maybe it's just because we live in Houston with expressway's all around us but we really don't need people toking up and driving around.

    Then, of course, the whole anti-that-food-is-bad-for-you-folks would be all up in arms because McDonald's sales would go up when folks got the munchies.

    I can hear the fighting now.

    ReplyDelete
  17. That town you are referring to, what was the crime rate before this medical marijuana was approved? Was there any evidence that medical marijuana was the cause for this increase in crime? I would bet money that this town wasn't the shinning example of how to live your life and there were a lot of problems prior to the introduction of legal medical marijuana.

    As for people driving around stoned, what's the difference than people that drive around drunk? Alcohol is a legal substance and people abuse it all the time. The majority of people that use it are responsible and use it approximately. The same would happen with marijuana. Some people would abuse it, but the majority would use it responsibly. The only difference is the government would be able to collect taxes off of it, and pot dealers would be out of a job because the mass production would make their "job" pointless and profitless opening up the opportunity for communities to take steps in cleaning up their towns.

    I don't smoke marijuana. I did several times in high school, but I realized that if I wanted to be a productive member of society, I would have to grow up and not smoke the stuff. I'm all about the choice to do it. If someone wants to smoke it, then let them do it. Tax it up and put that added revenue into the school systems, or research for renewable energy, or hell, even lower our property taxes!! People should be smart enough to realize the effects of those actions, and what abusing it could do. Just like alcohol and cigarettes.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I always love coming in so late in the conversation. Great arguments all around. The best point is that people disagree. We try to come to a compromise that best suits as many people as possible at the time. However, as our society become more and more litigious it is difficult to argue these "rights." 200+ years ago, it was attempted with the Bill of Rights. But according to Cody, if there is a law already, it is good enough. I would say that society has changed substantially in the last 200+ years and the Right to Bear Arms meaning has changed - unless you have someone out there stocking up on bear arms and that's just cruel to the bears. Society evolves, so too should laws to adapt to changes in society. If not, as a woman speaking out, I am sure the cops would be on the way here right now to arrest me - or at least to tell my husband to control me (by the way, that will never happen).

    I digress, the basic argument is when does the government have to step in? We try to live in a free society with a basic set of rules to allow us to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If shooting a defenseless animal for sport makes you happy, knock yourself out. If staring at a collection of guns is your thing, so be it. If I want to abort a pregnancy that is really my choice, not a place for some judge to tell me it is illegal. I'm not advocating the act, but an individual's choice in the matter. Who am I to tell you what is right for you - that's like forcing you to eat spinach because it's been determined that it is "good for you" even though you, individually, are allergic and it may actually kill you.

    But when your happiness interferes with the safety and happiness of other individuals it is the law that has to step in and regulate. I agree that qualifications to owning items, like atomic bombs and AK47's are subject to interpretation. I certainly don't want my neighbor owning either one. Especially a bomb that, if accidentally detonated, can wipe out the whole community. That is a general public welfare issue and prime example of the harming others issue. The guns are the same way. Cody, you may be well trained in how to operate, clean and store your gun and have taken classes teaching you such valuable things may be a qualification to owning one (although I doubt it). However, there are too many idiots in our society that don't know or don't care about such education. They let their kids play with them or decide after a couple of beers (or a joint) that it would be cool to show their friends all their weapons but oops, there is a bullet left in the chamber and a foot gets shot off or worse yet, a child gets killed. These are the issues the advocates for gun control are worried about - how do we protect your rights to ownership while protecting everyone else's right to protection from you?

    Should there be an IQ test for owning such items? You have to at least pass a driver's test to drive a car or fly a plane. I would hope that only qualified scientists are allowed anywhere near an atomic bomb.

    Now here's the real kicker argument - to prevent the idiot quotient - should those under a certain IQ not be allowed to procreate? Wouldn't that cut down on a lot of crimes, accidents and deaths? If you haven't seen it, rent Gattaca - very interesting movie from the late 90's where parents can genetically chose their child's future at conception (including sex, hair color, etc) and companies can discriminate against your genes instead of your gender, race or religion.

    Cody, it seems that your threads of discussion are just tangling into a big rope. Guns, sex discrimination, abortion - sounds like we are really arguing legislation....

    ReplyDelete
  19. I have no problem with the concealed carry law, just don't expect me to let you in my house. This law is like so many others, the concealed carry people got their way but got a little angry when we said, you can have your gun, but individual property owners can tell you if they don't want your guns in their establishment. It scares me just a little to think of some of the people that are now "legal" to cart around a deadly weapon. Seriously, what do you come across in your daily life in Hutchinson KS that makes you need to carry a gun. I would guess not much unless you are a criminal and then you don't care about having a permit anyway. As for me--I will take the chance that if a situation ever arises in my life that I need a gun to protect myself then I am doomed. Just my opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  20. We're talking about abortion, legalizing marijuana, and gun control on the same post.

    I think that we should make abortion illegal and shoot any doctor that performs one, only after he issues us a prescription for medical marijuana.

    This thread is out of control.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Liz,

    The town which legalized marijuana had a variety of problems because of that choice.

    The article I read had a picture of a burned out house. With an indoor marijuana crop, you need lights and most houses aren't designed for that type of electrical pull on a steady basis.

    The town had had continuing problems with fire after fire caused by rewiring for the lights needed to grow crops.

    Maybe I didn't explain this is detail but by legalizing marijuana in this town, it became a destination and resource for those in the drug business. Grow houses popped up all over town.

    With the grow houses came those who were already in the drug growing business, as well as those who wanted to get in on the money and be in the drug growing business.

    Drugs are a money crop. If your a drug dealer and know that there's a money crop being grown in many houses in the same town, you'll keep your ears and eyes open and when the time is right to "steal" that crop, you'll go in and take it. Decrease your overhead and have product on the street without any cash outlay of your own. You get 100% profit and those legal grow houses - what do you care - your a drug dealer.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Make it legal, regulate the growth, tax it to all get out like cigarettes and call it a day. Would that kill the need for gun control too? If the dealers are out of money they can't buy guns right?

    Another movie to motivate you thoughts on gun control (or lack there of) and our government's involvement is Lord of War with Nicolas Cage. From the arms dealer perspective but incredibly eye opening. He is reselling cold war firearms to militants in africa and elsewhere. My favorite line was something to the effect of "If I didn't sell them guns, someone else would. They want to kill each other, they will find a way."

    ReplyDelete
  23. Josie,

    Regulation usually means higher prices. Adding heavy taxes onto any item usually also means higher prices.

    Street dealers may have to cut their prices to compete but I don't see illegal sales of marijuana going away with legalization.

    There's legal prostitution in some places in the U.S. There's still a whole lot of illegal prostitution.

    IMHO, it's a myth that making something legal eliminates the illegal market.

    Just look at immigration. Many many people immigrate legally to the U.S. every year.

    It hasn't stopped illegal immigration.

    ReplyDelete
  24. It's too bad you can't express sarcasm in written form. That was said a little tongue-in-cheek. I really didn't expect it to stop, but taxing it does provide benefit to the government. They'll have more money to spend on making laws that are hard to enforce. Maybe they should tax the prostitutes too. The sin taxes seem to work for vegas. Maybe it would lower our real estate taxes here - build a new school or something. Are we completely off topic yet?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Josie,

    What were we talking about again? ? ?

    Do you mean to tell me that prostitution isn't about "gun control" (and barely) "concealed carry"? Obviously I need to go back to school.

    I miss my emoticons too.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Holy crap I knew it would digress but wow.

    Just kidding... I hope everyone gets this site, or at least gets that I love the discussion. I appreciate all of you coming here and giving your opinions and not get nasty.

    i don't care if you get heated, hell I expect it. I don't care if you get emotional, that makes it better. I just don't think there is a need to get nasty, I love debate, can't really stand arguing and the group of regular here has been great at it.

    You guys suck at following directions, the weed comment was meant to lead into a later post and you guys went to far so lets just have it out here.

    I think I have changed my mind and think we should just legalize it and treat it just like alcohol.

    I have yet to see an argument against it that makes me think that a bad idea.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Cody,

    Too many people eating munchies at McDonald's didn't convince you? : )

    ReplyDelete
  28. Maybe we shouldn't legalize it. Marijuana leads to munchies, munchies lead to McDonald's, McDonald's is the evil destroying our country. Sorry, Is that another post? Ask me about my almost vegan diet if you want to get started on that discussion. (In case your wondering I actually love a good steak and the diet was brought on by pregnancy and now I kinda like it) BUT that doesn't stop McDonald's from being evil and addictive!

    ReplyDelete
  29. Burger King is a better late night munchie choice. They flame-broil!

    ReplyDelete
  30. yeah but their fries suck. Wendy's has good fries - and salt. Man, It's too early to think about lunch...this is making me hungry!

    ReplyDelete
  31. Wendy's in Hutch has the best Noon fast food service in the world. They are freakishly fast.


    Ok this post needs to die. Great discussion I think everybody opened their mind up a little, at least I did.

    ReplyDelete

I love the discussion in the comments.. so... GO FOR IT!

Other CodyTalks posts you may like