Pages: 1 … 7 8 9 10 11

 

2009-07-10 09:31:54
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6106|eXtreme to the maX
I've got a buddy who graduated from University of Michigan, went onto Harvard to get his Masters & PHd and is traveling the world and teaching.  I'd wager he still smokes out.  It is all up to the individual.
Its going to be variable, not everyone who smokes one joint is going to end up destitute.

I have seen significant changes in people who use pot to varying degrees but have not seen anything like the same thing with alcohol.

I've also experienced a good deal of blind and irrational aggression from tokers when I suggest pot is not the harmless wonder-drug they like to believe it is.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
2009-07-10 09:36:43
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6106|eXtreme to the maX

SysTray wrote:

Not to mention the fact that your idea of success seems to be close minded.
Read what I said, I didn't define success or failure, it affects peoples progression, of course they are isolated, I already said that too.

If my friends had been idle dimwits whose destiny was to be a) A care home worker or b) Unemployable then I would have no argument.

go fuck yourself
You can do whatever you like in the summer, I'm not interested.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-07-10 09:37:36)

Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
2009-07-10 09:42:09
SysTray
"Generous mods" < Thats right Systray !
+180|6821|Delaware

Dilbert_X wrote:

SysTray wrote:

Not to mention the fact that your idea of success seems to be close minded.
Read what I said, I didn't define success or failure, it affects peoples progression, of course they are isolated, I already said that too.

If my friends had been idle dimwits whose destiny was to be a) A care home worker or b) Unemployable then I would have no argument.
So you're saying that people have to stick to one course of action throughout their life less they be judged by the almighty Dilbert? Peoples ideals and wants and needs change daily, let alone throughout years of life experience and exploration. So they don't want to be doctors or lawyers or biologists or whatever anymore? What makes that bad again?

You can do whatever you like in the summer, I'm not interested.
If you weren't why'd you reply to that portion
2009-07-10 09:44:11
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6581|SE London

Dilbert_X wrote:

Tripling the risk of mental health issues - thats enough by itself.
Lung damage - does not sound too good
Demotivational effects - and then some

I would also add

Paranoia - My crap life is someone elses fault man, I'll just sit around whingeing and hope it gets better.

From my entirely biased sample of people I knew who smoked dope on a regular basis - and used other drugs to be fair.

Two classmates from school:
The first slightly smarter than me, a talented musician, original thinker, motivated to get a marine biology degree and travel the world.
One year later is smoking dope regularly, failing his courses, bumming around and juggling on the street to make money (in the days of 100% student grants and all fees paid, plus wealthy parents who bought him a flat). Ten years on he just managed to scrape a pass, without honours, and is now managing an aged care home. A public school education, free university and he's organising bed pan rotas and playing in a crap tribute band at the age of 40, but he is fine with it.

The second incredibly smart, acheived four 'A's at A level, without doing any work to speak of - apart from building electric guitars - and walked into a Maths degree at Cambridge.
One term later bombed out, was allowed to try again the following year and bombed out again.
Now the limit of his ambition is to sit on the sofa smoking, although I don't think his mum lets him use pot these days.
He did bring back some awesome porn from Amsterdam, although I'm pretty sure the un-marked, TDK tapes he paid GBP50 each for weren't really factory masters.

What I have noticed with pot users is they often cease to progress once they start using. Once they find pot life is good enough, everything else suddenly becomes secondary.
I've discussed this with enough people in medical and educational fields who concur to be confident its not my imagination.
A) It doesn't triple the risk of mental health issues, unless you are a kid smoking it. The impact on adults is far less dramatic. It's worth pointing out that these effects are meaningless to more than 95% of the population, since most are not prone to mental health issues. Cannabis use doesn't create these issues, it just limits the minds capacity to deal with them.
B) Paranoia IS a mental health issue. Doesn't need adding.

Motivation

This is the big problem with weed. It makes it a bit of a battle to ever get off your arse and do anything. If you can't get past that though, you obviously have no will power. Must be the case if a lazy fuck like me can manage to function properly in society whilst smoking weed on a daily basis.

Dilbert_X wrote:

I have seen significant changes in people who use pot to varying degrees but have not seen anything like the same thing with alcohol.
Maybe YOU haven't. But look at the stats and you get a very different picture.
2009-07-10 09:46:28
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6106|eXtreme to the maX
So you're saying that people have to stick to one course of action throughout their life less they be judged by the almighty Dilbert? Peoples ideals and wants and needs change daily, let alone throughout years of life experience and exploration. So they don't want to be doctors or lawyers or biologists or whatever anymore? What makes that bad again?
Not at all, my point is once they start smoking their wants and needs pretty much cease.
I don't have a problem with people changing direction. To come to a dead stop seems odd to me.

Yes I picked two subjective examples.
No I don't believe they are completely atypical, based on other experiences and many discussions with professionals who deal with this kind of thing.
And not everyone who uses will have the same experience.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-07-10 09:49:28)

Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
2009-07-10 09:50:58
13rin
Member
+977|6479

Dilbert_X wrote:

I've got a buddy who graduated from University of Michigan, went onto Harvard to get his Masters & PHd and is traveling the world and teaching.  I'd wager he still smokes out.  It is all up to the individual.
Its going to be variable, not everyone who smokes one joint is going to end up destitute.

I have seen significant changes in people who use pot to varying degrees but have not seen anything like the same thing with alcohol.

I've also experienced a good deal of blind and irrational aggression from tokers when I suggest pot is not the harmless wonder-drug they like to believe it is.
Yes, I will grant you that the guy is a friggin' geinus (4.5 GPA on a 4.0 Scale in HS)...  For him it wasn't a just a joint, try a four footer binger he named the 'purple monster' which made people pass out.  And yes as it is a drug one would expect a varying level of 'side effects' or changes in just about any user.

I agree with you 100% about the alcohol point. 

I can't fathom how someone could be inhaling 'smoke' and argue that it doesn't harm them.... Wait, er big tobacco...
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something.  - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
2009-07-10 09:53:14
SysTray
"Generous mods" < Thats right Systray !
+180|6821|Delaware

Dilbert_X wrote:

So you're saying that people have to stick to one course of action throughout their life less they be judged by the almighty Dilbert? Peoples ideals and wants and needs change daily, let alone throughout years of life experience and exploration. So they don't want to be doctors or lawyers or biologists or whatever anymore? What makes that bad again?
Not at all, my point is once they start smoking their wants and needs pretty much cease.
I don't have a problem with people changing direction. To come to a dead stop seems odd to me.

Yes I picked two subjective examples.
No I don't believe they are completely atypical, based on other experiences and many discussions with professionals who deal with this kind of thing.
My point is that who says they're coming to a complete stop, except you? You said yourself they were happy with their decisions, didn't you? Yes they may have come to a stop in one direction, but they continued in another. It's not like they killed themselves because all they ever did was smoke weed...that would be a complete stop.

I wanna know what your other experiences are, and which professionals you talked to on the matter. It would help me better understand your position because as I said earlier, most people are biased towards their own side of the argument to one degree or another. If that's the case no matter what professional you talked to not a damn thing he says carries any meaning.

The discussion as a whole would be a lot better if marijuana was legal worldwide so studies could actually be performed and documented by doctors who are licensed to study marijuana and its effects. However, there aren't many doctors like that so I have a hard time believing your professionals know exactly what they're talking about.
2009-07-10 10:07:47
Diesel_dyk
Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears
+178|5994|Truthistan

Bertster7 wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

I have seen significant changes in people who use pot to varying degrees but have not seen anything like the same thing with alcohol.
Maybe YOU haven't. But look at the stats and you get a very different picture.
Statistics don't mean anything. If a person drinks alcohol and becomes and alcoholic does that mean that alcohol causes alcoholism? No. other people can drink and don't become alcoholics. There are underlying factors not taken into account by statistics and those variables dealing with biological predisposition to mental illness or addiction would be near impossible to distill down to a few crappy statistics.


So the point is chicken and the egg.
1. Does Marijuana cause mental illness, or are some people self medicating for a underlying mental illness, or does marijuana somehow reduce the persons ability to suppress their mental illness from public view.

2. Does marijuana cause someone to drop out of society or did the person decide that they were happy at the success they obtained and smoking marijuana is just a decision they made because they like it. Perhaps they can indulge more in life's pleasures because they are not chasing after the brass ring 20 hours a day. I can't say I could find fault with that life choice.

3. Does marijuana cause marriages to break up or did people get married too young, have kids too soon and grow too bored of sex with each other and are now using marijuana to make things more interesting or using to to escape each other, which the real reason for the break up.


You would have to answer questions like these about underlying factors and remove them from any statistic before being able to waive around the magic statistics stick. But when it comes to the govt's war on drugs, propaganda is never about the truth.
2009-07-10 10:23:25
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6581|SE London

Diesel_dyk wrote:

If a person drinks alcohol and becomes and alcoholic does that mean that alcohol causes alcoholism? No. other people can drink and don't become alcoholics.


Alcohol doesn't cause alcoholism?

I think you'll find it does.....
2009-07-10 10:34:47
DonFck
Hibernator
+3,227|6632|Finland

Bertster7 wrote:

Diesel_dyk wrote:

If a person drinks alcohol and becomes and alcoholic does that mean that alcohol causes alcoholism? No. other people can drink and don't become alcoholics.


Alcohol doesn't cause alcoholism?

I think you'll find it does.....
I think you'll find that alcohol doesn't cause alcoholism to everyone who uses it? That was his point.
I need around tree fiddy.
2009-07-10 10:39:41
Diesel_dyk
Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears
+178|5994|Truthistan

Bertster7 wrote:

Diesel_dyk wrote:

If a person drinks alcohol and becomes and alcoholic does that mean that alcohol causes alcoholism? No. other people can drink and don't become alcoholics.


Alcohol doesn't cause alcoholism?

I think you'll find it does.....
Are you trying to be sarcastic? I can't tell

No it doesn't, its the persons predisposition, either mental or physiological that causes alcoholism. That's why some people can drink like fishes and never become alcoholic.

here look at this

Other factors can lead to excessive drinking that contributes to the addiction process. These include:

Genetics. Certain genetic factors may cause a person to be vulnerable to alcoholism or other addiction. If you have an imbalance of brain chemicals, you may be more predisposed to alcoholism.
Emotional state. High levels of stress, anxiety or emotional pain can lead some people to drink alcohol to block out the turmoil. Certain stress hormones may be associated with alcoholism.
Psychological factors. Having low-self esteem or suffering from depression may make you more likely to abuse alcohol. Having friends or a close partner who drinks regularly, but who may not abuse alcohol could lead to excessive drinking on your part. It may be difficult for you to distance yourself from these "enablers" or at least from their drinking habits.
Social and cultural factors. The glamorous way that drinking alcohol is portrayed in advertising and in the entertainment media sends many people messages that it's OK to drink excessively.
From Here



So alcohol is not the cause of alcoholism, there are underlying factors like I mentioned and this analysis applies even more so to marijuana which isn't addictive at all except for mental addiction which is really all about underlying issue

Stats don't mean shit which is to say that they are shit and because they are shit they prove nothing when thrown around a forum like their fact.


So lay another Cleveland steamer with propaganda peanuts on us.
2009-07-10 10:46:27
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6581|SE London

DonFck wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Diesel_dyk wrote:

If a person drinks alcohol and becomes and alcoholic does that mean that alcohol causes alcoholism? No. other people can drink and don't become alcoholics.


Alcohol doesn't cause alcoholism?

I think you'll find it does.....
I think you'll find that alcohol doesn't cause alcoholism to everyone who uses it? That was his point.
No, obviously not everyone that drinks alcohol will become an alcoholic.

Doesn't change the fact that alcohol does cause alcoholism. It's impossible to become an alcoholic without drinking alcohol. 100% of cases of alcoholism are caused by people drinking too much alcohol.

Just like heroin causes heroin addiction. It's impossible (or exceedingly stupid) to claim that addiction to any substance is not caused by that substance. Obviously there can and usually will be other contributary factors, but that doesn't change the plain fact that the root cause of any addiction is taking the substance you're addicted to.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2009-07-10 10:48:38)

2009-07-10 11:02:39
ghettoperson
Member
+1,943|6649

I'm an alcoholic. On that note, I'm off drinking, later gents!
2009-07-10 11:07:53
Diesel_dyk
Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears
+178|5994|Truthistan

Bertster7 wrote:

DonFck wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:



Alcohol doesn't cause alcoholism?

I think you'll find it does.....
I think you'll find that alcohol doesn't cause alcoholism to everyone who uses it? That was his point.
No, obviously not everyone that drinks alcohol will become an alcoholic.

Doesn't change the fact that alcohol does cause alcoholism. It's impossible to become an alcoholic without drinking alcohol. 100% of cases of alcoholism are caused by people drinking too much alcohol.

Just like heroin causes heroin addiction. It's impossible (or exceedingly stupid) to claim that addiction to any substance is not caused by that substance. Obviously there can and usually will be other contributary factors, but that doesn't change the plain fact that the root cause of any addiction is taking the substance you're addicted to.
you are using an overly symplistic analysis. If a person is addicted to alcohol and alcohol is banned, then they will find something else, they might even engage in non drug use activity to the point of addiction like gambling.

So if you are going to say marijauna is addictive or destroys people lives or some how retards them in their devlopment, then other underlying factors have to be weeded out before you can make that overly simplistic statement. Those "contributing" factors are in fact the cause of addiction.

So while banning substances like heroin or marijuana or alcholol will reduce the rate of addiction to those substances, I seriously doubt that the "contributing" factors will disappear and that the addiction will not manefest itself into something else, even if you had a sucessful prohibition on any item or all of them for that matter. and the fact remains that the rest of us individuals are being punished by having things like marijauna banned because some individuals have an underlying predisposition to addiction. Are we cattle/human resources? or are we individuals?  IMO society has been leaning far too much towards the former.

So while I call for a more in depth analysis, you can call that exceedingly stupid, but that pretty much sums up the robustness of your argument. If you make your statements broad enough and your statisitical grouping large enough you can pretty much "prove" anything, including propaganda.
2009-07-10 17:28:10
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6106|eXtreme to the maX

Systray wrote:

wanna know what your other experiences are, and which professionals you talked to on the matter.
Doctors, educators, Police and many firends and acquaintances.
The consensus seems to be pot changes people, and changes their progression through life.
Abandoning goals, being unemployed and/or a petty criminal is suddenly OK, pot makes things alright.

I'm ignoring addictive personalities in this, of which I've seen enough.

Whether pot creates issues or just brings out underlying ones I don't know, doesn't matter really.

Diesel-Dyk wrote:

So while I call for a more in depth analysis, you can call that exceedingly stupid
I don't really see the need for studies to prove the harmlessness of something for which there is ample evidence that its harmful.

The 'but other things are harmful too' doesn't wash either.
If alcohol or tobacco were discovered tomorrow they would be banned the day after.
They are currently socially acceptable, pot isn't, thats the way it is.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-07-10 17:31:02)

Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
2009-07-11 12:22:00
JahManRed
wank
+646|6628|IRELAND

Dilbert_X wrote:

I have seen significant changes in people who use pot to varying degrees but have not seen anything like the same thing with alcohol.
Every night I go out on the town I see people change for the worse when they drink. Same in every town, in every country.  Last weekend I seen a bunch of fights. I seen a guy chuck a bottle through the window of a police car. I seen a girl in a mini skirt puking into a bin. I seen my mate pick up a fat ugly pig and take her home. Some guy crashed his car into a shop front drunk. I wonder how many frustrated men came home drunk and beat their wives? None of this happens when ppl smoke pot. Your talking shit.
2009-07-11 12:22:50
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|6762

thats a stupid comparison.  booze is legal and more available.
2009-07-11 20:23:39
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6106|eXtreme to the maX

Jahmanred wrote:

I seen my mate pick up a fat ugly pig and take her home.
Drink does paralyse inhibitions, but this discussion is not about whether pot is worse than alcohol, its about whether pot is harmful.
And I was talking about long term mental/personality changes, not short term stupidity, so I wasn't talking shit, you misunderstood the discussion.

Anyway, veritas in vino - your mate likes fat ugly pigs

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-07-11 20:24:29)

Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
2009-07-11 21:27:24
BVC
Member
+325|6695
In case anybody hasn't watched it, heres a link to Reefer Madness:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid … er+madness
2009-07-12 09:17:55
Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6548|San Diego, CA, USA
Isn't there a school somewhere teaching you how to grow your own plants and be a 'dispensary'???
2009-07-13 04:16:32
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6411|'Murka

Pubic wrote:

FEOS wrote:

No, I'm not assuming that. It doesn't matter whether the law is "just and fair" in your estimation. Until it is changed, it IS the law and violating it simply because you don't like it and it infringes on your ability to get baked is irresponsible behavior.
You can't assume the law is responsible.  If it contravenes common sense, then it can be argued that the law is irresponsible, and I argue that current MJ laws are irresponsible by virtue of their reasoning/justification being flawed.
You're missing the point. The rightness or wrongness of the law is irrelevant. The fact that you (for argument's sake) choose to violate the law simply for your own pleasure/convenience is irresponsible behavior.

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Why? If there are no consequences, how is it irresponsible?
Did you miss the part about choosing to break a law simply for convenience/personal pleasure?

It's as much an ethical question as anything else. Do you do the right (responsible) thing even when nobody is looking?
I didn't miss that part, but I still do not agree that simply breaking a law is in itself irresponsible.

It's not about right and wrong, because that's not what the law is. Legal does not mean moral and the reverse is also true. Nor is responsibility simply about right and wrong. It is more a case of due care and diligence.
So you're making my point now?

I never said responsibility was about right or wrong. I don't necessarily agree that MJ should be illegal. But that doesn't mean I choose to go out and violate the law that makes it illegal simply because I don't agree with it. To do so is irresponsible.

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:


Bullshit. That's a very naive perspective. For example, 90% of weed smoked in the UK is grown domestically. I always know where weed I buy is grown and usually know the people who are growing it.
And how well do you know them? Do you know what activities the money you provide them funds? Can you say that with absolute surety that they aren't doing anything "bad" with the money you've given them because you've chosen to violate a law for your own convenience/pleasure?c
Very well, lived with one of them for six months and another is one of my ex's. The misconception by all those who don't have a real world understanding of these things is that all money from drugs funds crime. Not that a large amount of weed is grown by students trying to pay their way through university (which much of it is - but certainly not most).

I should make it clear that I'm not in any way, shape or form trying to claim that the majority of drug use is responsible, because that is patently untrue. But using drugs is not automatically irresponsible and the argument that illegal = irresponsible doesn't hold much water. Just like you can drink responsibly, you can obtain and take drugs responsibly.
Yes, you can drink responsibly...because the act of drinking is not illegal, unless you are underage. If you are underage (or enable those underage) and you drink...you are being irresponsible by doing so.

And...for the third (at least) time: I never said illegal=irresponsible.

Explain to me how knowingly violating the law is responsible. It simply isn't.

Bertster7 wrote:

I sincerely doubt that anyone here has never broken a law.
I don't believe I (or anyone else) said otherwise.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2009-07-13 04:43:28
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6581|SE London

FEOS wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Why? If there are no consequences, how is it irresponsible?
Did you miss the part about choosing to break a law simply for convenience/personal pleasure?

It's as much an ethical question as anything else. Do you do the right (responsible) thing even when nobody is looking?
I didn't miss that part, but I still do not agree that simply breaking a law is in itself irresponsible.

It's not about right and wrong, because that's not what the law is. Legal does not mean moral and the reverse is also true. Nor is responsibility simply about right and wrong. It is more a case of due care and diligence.
So you're making my point now?

I never said responsibility was about right or wrong. I don't necessarily agree that MJ should be illegal. But that doesn't mean I choose to go out and violate the law that makes it illegal simply because I don't agree with it. To do so is irresponsible.
My point there is that responsibility is about due care and diligence. Not legality. Whether something is legal or not bears absolutely no relation whatsoever to whether it should be irresponsible. If you go about taking drugs in a careful manner and make sure you are not causing any problems for anyone else, that is responsible. Legality is not a factor.

FEOS wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:


And how well do you know them? Do you know what activities the money you provide them funds? Can you say that with absolute surety that they aren't doing anything "bad" with the money you've given them because you've chosen to violate a law for your own convenience/pleasure?c
Very well, lived with one of them for six months and another is one of my ex's. The misconception by all those who don't have a real world understanding of these things is that all money from drugs funds crime. Not that a large amount of weed is grown by students trying to pay their way through university (which much of it is - but certainly not most).

I should make it clear that I'm not in any way, shape or form trying to claim that the majority of drug use is responsible, because that is patently untrue. But using drugs is not automatically irresponsible and the argument that illegal = irresponsible doesn't hold much water. Just like you can drink responsibly, you can obtain and take drugs responsibly.
Yes, you can drink responsibly...because the act of drinking is not illegal, unless you are underage. If you are underage (or enable those underage) and you drink...you are being irresponsible by doing so.

And...for the third (at least) time: I never said illegal=irresponsible.
Yet you repeatedly assert that drug use is irresponsible BECAUSE it is illegal.

You don't see how that is very self-contradictory?

I don't even agree with your underage drinking points (based on the drinking age in the US). There is no medical reason why anyone from the age of 18-19 shouldn't be able to drink. By your definition above, a 20 year old having a glass of wine with their meal is irresponsible. I think that's bollocks.

FEOS wrote:

Explain to me how knowingly violating the law is responsible. It simply isn't.
Look you're doing it again.
2009-07-13 05:30:01
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6106|eXtreme to the maX

Bertster wrote:

My point there is that responsibility is about due care and diligence. Not legality. Whether something is legal or not bears absolutely no relation whatsoever to whether it should be irresponsible.
Due care and diligence can't be left up to the individual, thats why we have laws and the mechanisms to enforce them.

I like shooting, I quite fancy a machine-gun, they're widely available, I don't see why they should be illegal - its just the jack boot govt trying to prevent me having my fun, and gun crime is wildy exaggerated by the fascist media as part of the global plot to prevent me enjoying myself.
If I blow my ear-drums in or my leg off, or it turns out to be a welded up hack-job and blows up in my face thats my problem, I know what I'm getting into, I'll bear the responsibility, but I will expect the health service to pick up the tab.

Should I obtain one I don't see the need to unload it when I'm not using it or keep it in a safe, I won't misuse it so you have nothing to worry about there. I'm an expert marksman and very responsible about where I shoot (although obviously it won't be on a licensed range) so there is no risk of accidentally hurting anyone.

I've never been burgled, so the likelihood of it being stolen is remote. If some irresponsible person burgles my house and steals it, well they're the criminal not me, I'll report it to the Police and claim on my insurance as one does.

Providing I don't do anything wrong, apart from obtaining said machine gun in the first place - which is only breaking a petty and annoying law which needn't apply to me - I don't see any issue with this course of action.

I will have a clear conscience handing over money to hardworking backstreet gunmakers/dealers, who are after all just trying to make a tax-free living in the neo-fascist totalitarian state we find ourselves in thanks to the oppression of big business and the illuminati.
Never mind that I could man up and go live somewhere I could have as many legal machine guns as I want, some states in America, Somalia, Yemen etc. I can't be arsed to do that.

I will introduce my kids to machine-gunning at the appropriate age, they'll be curious and it might as well be from me as the guy on the street corner.

So there you go, its easy to enjoy unlicensed military weapons responsibly and no harms done to anyone.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-07-13 05:33:16)

Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
2009-07-13 05:35:02
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6581|SE London

Dilbert_X wrote:

Bertster wrote:

My point there is that responsibility is about due care and diligence. Not legality. Whether something is legal or not bears absolutely no relation whatsoever to whether it should be irresponsible.
Due care and diligence can't be left up to the individual, thats why we have laws and the mechanisms to enforce them.

I like shooting, I quite fancy a machine-gun, they're widely available, I don't see why they should be illegal - its just the jack boot govt trying to prevent me having my fun, and gun crime is wildy exaggerated by the fascist media as part of the global plot to prevent me enjoying myself.
If I blow my ear-drums in or my leg off, or it turns out to be a welded up hack-job and blows up in my face thats my problem, I know what I'm getting into, I'll bear the responsibility, but I will expect the health service to pick up the tab.

Should I obtain one I don't see the need to unload it when I'm not using it or keep it in a safe, I won't misuse it so you have nothing to worry about there. I'm an expert marksman and very responsible about where I shoot (although obviously it won't be on a licensed range) so there is no risk of accidentally hurting anyone.

I've never been burgled, so the likelihood of it being stolen is remote. If some irresponsible person burgles my house and steals it, well they're the criminal not me, I'll report it to the Police and claim on my insurance as one does.

Providing I don't do anything wrong, apart from obtaining said machine gun in the first place - which is only breaking a petty and annoying law which needn't apply to me - I don't see any issue with this course of action.

I will have a clear conscience handing over money to hardworking backstreet gunmakers/dealers, who are after all just trying to make a tax-free living in the neo-fascist totalitarian state we find ourselves in thanks to the oppression of big business and the illuminati.
Never mind that I could man up and go live somewhere I could have as many legal machine guns as I want, some states in America, Somalia, Yemen etc. I can't be arsed to do that.

I will introduce my kids to machine-gunning at the appropriate age, they'll be curious and it might as well be from me as the guy on the street corner.

So there you go, its easy to enjoy unlicensed military weapons responsibly and no harms done to anyone.
That's really, really stupid.
2009-07-13 05:41:56
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6106|eXtreme to the maX

Bertster wrote:

There is no medical reason why anyone from the age of 18-19 shouldn't be able to drink.
Actually there is.
The brain continues to develop up to the age of 25, alcohol use disrupts that - hence chavs.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!

 

Pages: 1 … 7 8 9 10 11

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard