College Democrats of America | Barry Considine's Blog: Lets give 'em something to talk about.

Lets give 'em something to talk about.

By Barry C aka Casey - Oct 20th, 2006 at 1:45 am EDT

Also listed in: Advocates for Single-Payer Health Care | Artists For Democratic Progress | Kicking Ass | Old Kennedy-type Democrats | The Liberal Democratic party of the United States of America

Comments | Mail to a Friend

Bad? Brilliant?

You can rate this post.
Register or login now and
tell us what you think.

First and foremost we have to get out the vote. Next lets assume we sweep both houses. Will we return to the debate over medical marijuana? Will we debate ending drug prohibition? Should we debate these topics? My opinion is we should. We should not only debate these topics we should pass both. Medical marijuana should be passed first. This because maybe there will be strong enough support on both sides of the aisle to override the inevitable veto. Reconsidering the failed war on drugs will have to wait till we control the executive and legislative branches. So what do you think?

Reader Comments

shockingly, I agree

By snakelips Oct 20th 2006 at 8:58 am EDT

I actually agree with you Barry. I lean libertarian, but I am registered Rep. I believe you have a right to your own body and drugs don't bother me. I do think that any crimes committed while high should be prosecuted. I believe employers have the right to drug test. After all, it's their business. So, if you want to sit in your house and smoke and shoot up, it's fine with me. Just remember, I'm not going to pay your bills and if you rob someone or drive high, you're going to jail. And I'll go with your no plea deals idea too.

Dang, Barry, we're both radical! A Dem hard on crime and a Rep easy on drugs!

Re: shockingly, I agree

By Barry C aka Casey Oct 20th 2006 at 9:13 am EDT

Ok how 'bout this. Our gun laws are a joke. With out a debate on the true meaning of the 2nd amendment. Where do you stand on complete gun registration. I have to register each and every car I have and the constitution is mute on my right to a car. But here is the kicker if you violate gun laws, penalties start at 15 to life.
I'm sorry but with all the talk about gun laws I can't get past "Oh, I lost that gun." You probably know better that I how expensive legal guns are.

By snakelips Oct 20th 2006 at 10:18 am EDT

Ok, gun laws...

I understand the desire for safety and that guns are a scarey thing. I feel for those who've lost family members due to gun violence.

And now the big BUT...

But, I'm against registration of guns. My read on the second ammendment is that it exists to give the average citizen the ability to resist (in a worst case scenario) the tyranny of gov't. A lot of weight is given by the left to the phrase about a "well regulated militia". They equate this to a state national guard. I don't disagree that the national guard is a well regulated militia, but it is a gov't entitity and as such could be used to oppress citizens' rights. I think registration gives the gov't a base to work from should the oppression bug bite and they want to disarm the public. Our second ammendment right is the final defense for all our other rights.

I think this approach is very similar to (mine and maybe your) ideas on drugs. You may have them and use them, but if you break a law with them, then you'll be punished. Do you see what I'm getting at? Even a "lost" gun is of no danger unless a crime is committed with it.

By LorryRae Oct 20th 2006 at 1:05 pm EDT

I have been threatened by a gun and I own a gun so I can see both sides of the issue but I agree completely about having the security of knowing that the bottom line defense for me and mine is my business and noone else's.

By c frederick Oct 20th 2006 at 7:22 pm EDT

I'd like to agree that gun registration is an infringement on personal right to bear arms. But, basically every single credit card purchase goes through the FBI regardless of what I think.

I'd like also to be for a volunteer army, but I know that too many of the people who do bear arms (and not just a couple) have never volunteered nor have their children. It would be great if those who totally believed in personal and national defence would stand up and fight literally for the country.

We don't need gun owners hiding in the hills because the government is infringing their rights! Which they are!!! We need gun owners standing up publicly and playing the role of leader, not victim.

i agree

By big brother Oct 20th 2006 at 11:15 am EDT

federal catalogue of gun owners allows them to know who they must disarm in the case of martial law, or a complete lockdown like the EU.

So where does well regulated come in

By Barry C aka Casey Oct 20th 2006 at 10:36 pm EDT

Obviously I do look at guns differently than drugs. The reason being is that a person's drug misuse usually first hurts the drug user. On the other hand a person's "misuse" of a gun usually hurts an innocent person. Don't get me wrong I'm not a "gun nut". I used to own a full bore 12 gauge shot gun. I was a duck and goose hunter. I gave it up because farm raised fowl say like a long island duck taste better. Therefore I didn't need to hunt them. But in the debate about gun control we must first reconcile the term "well regulated". I believe one thing is mentioned many times by people smarter than me. Jefferson, Adams, Hamilton... and the other founding fathers were unlikely to have foreseen the repeating rifle much less a M-16. Do you believe they would have trusted their fellow citizens with such unbelievable firepower?