Gun Control - What's the Problem?

[Rigby5]

Something like 3% of the population own HALF the fucking guns in the country.

And to keep those gun nuts happy we have to live with mass shootings every week or two?

That is totally inaccurate.

Ohh?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ults-own-half-of-americas-guns/?noredirect=on

Just 3 percent of American adults own half of the nation's firearms, according to the results of a Harvard-Northeastern survey of 4,000 gun owners.


It must be hard work being this gullible.

The Washington Post was bought by the Moonies a decade ago, and it no source of anything.
You should know it is nearly impossible to get gun stats.
Foolish post.

You're as wrong about that as everything else.

The Moonies own the right wing Washington Times...not the Post stupid

You are right about the Washington Times and the Moonies, but clearly it is absurd to claim just 3% of the population owns 50% of the guns.
Since over 35% of homes in the US have armed, that means at least a third of all people in the US are armed. But if there were a billion guns and most were owned by a handful of collectors, so what? What possible relevance could there be to the fact all households should be armed, not just from the suggestions of the founders, but plain common sense, because police can't protect you or your family.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I still wanna know where it says people who have served jail sentences can't bear arms in the constitution.

It doesn't, but taking away rights is part of the sentence you get when you committed a crime you knew would deny you those rights. In that sense, it was an option to no longer have those rights that you chose.

That's contradictory, Ray.

How so? You knew if you got caught robbing the bank, you would go to prison. You knew if you got caught, you would lose your right to vote. You knew if you got caught, you would probably never have a good paying job once you were released from prison, If you go caught, you would lose your right to own a firearm.

You made the choice to give up those rights when you committed the crime. So it's not like they were being taken away from you for no reason.

I'm a truck driver, and because of what I do for a living, I had rights taken away from me as well, and I didn't even do anything wrong.

 

[Natural Citizen]

I still wanna know where it says people who have served jail sentences can't bear arms in the constitution.

It doesn't, but taking away rights is part of the sentence you get when you committed a crime you knew would deny you those rights. In that sense, it was an option to no longer have those rights that you chose.

That's contradictory, Ray.

How so? You knew if you got caught robbing the bank, you would go to prison. You knew if you got caught, you would lose your right to vote. You knew if you got caught, you would probably never have a good paying job once you were released from prison, If you go caught, you would lose your right to own a firearm.

You made the choice to give up those rights when you committed the crime. So it's not like they were being taken away from you for no reason.

I'm a truck driver, and because of what I do for a living, I had rights taken away from me as well, and I didn't even do anything wrong.

It doesn't say it anywhere in the constitution. Which you correctly stated first. So any buts are superceded. Irrelevant. But you said but.

 

[Rigby5]

10000 people own 17 guns or more. Everybody else has 1 or 2. That's all the study suggests, but that is total bullshit. There are way more than 250 million guns.

Wrong again. "Everybody"...actually ends up being only 22% of the population who own ANY guns

That is obviously false because over 35% of house holds are armed.

 

[Flopper]

I'm a gun owner, most of my friends are gun owners, but i'm confused... What is the problem that most conservatives have with President Obama's Gun Control ideas? I hear the speeches, read the plans, watched the town hall and listen to commentary on both sides until my ears bleed and I still don't understand the conservative position.

Everything that the President has suggested makes sense to me. I don't feel threatened about losing my guns, and I don't think that a responsible citizen's ability to buy a gun is being threatened. I think anything that helps keep guns out of the wrong hands is a good idea, it will save lives! The only point I hear from conservatives on why they object is that they think there is a hidden agenda by the Left to take away all guns. That is ridiculous, paranoid and unrealistic, there must be something more...

Why does the pro-gun base object to background checks and regulations that will make it harder for criminals or irresponsible individuals to own a gun? I just don't understand the argument. Please enlighten me.

First, what purpose do you believe will be served by making it more difficult for criminals and crazies to buy guns? Do you really think being unable to buy a gun for a reasonable price at a legal gun store will stop someone, anyone, who wants a gun from getting one?

Have you ever heard of Prohibition? How about the current War On Drugs? This has been going on at near police-state intensity for more than three decades and the result has been drugs are more available today than they were when this counterproductive folly was started -- and they cost less.

We who oppose any further nibbling away at the Second Amendment are well aware that guns cannot be controlled anymore than drugs can. We know that nothing can come of this endless attempt to disarm us other than further inconvenience to legitimate gun owners. Because if the background check idea is enacted it's not going to end there. Little by little these anti-gun opportunists, most of whom know nothing about guns, are afraid of them, and are not inclined to defend themselves under any circumstances, won't stop until your Second Amendment rights are limited to keeping a single-shot .22 rifle chambered for short, and bearing it to a federally supervised range.

Guns are in this Nation's DNA. Nothing short of totalitarian, door-busting, full-bore police-state methods will put an end to the occasional shooting, mass-shooting, and armed stand-off. So let's put an end to this creeping prohibition before it reaches that level.

The only gun law I approve of is a comprehensive training requirement and competence test for anyone who wishes to own a gun or guns -- and intensified training for anyone who wishes to carry -- open or concealed.

(Pardon the excessive boldface. It is the result of a quirk I can't control.)

The gun culture in the US did not happen overnight. It took over two hundred years to develop to the point it is today. It can't be wipe out by just passing a law. Over time, say a century or so, gun ownership will be controlled to a point where guns can be kept out of the hands of criminals. I suspect technology will play a large part.

I think you have this backwards,
Guns used to be ubiquitous.
That is because there were wild animals, few grocery stores, no police, no telephones, and the village, state, and federal government relied on armed populations for everything.

Guns are slowly dwindling, but that is a bad thing.
That is because governments are getting more and more corrupt.
And you are totally wrong about technology.
Technology, like 3D metal printers, make it trivial for criminals to be armed.
And it can only get worse in the future.

Looking back a hundred to two hundred years ago, gun ownership in rural areas was very common for protection for Indians, wild animals, and outlaws. However, many towns and cities had much tougher gun control laws that than today. Many of the legendary cow towns of the old west such as Tombstone, Dodge City, Abilene, and Deadwood required visitors as well as residents upon entering town to disarm, either at a hotel or a lawman's office. General residents were allowed to have guns in the home but not on the streets. Same goes for most of the New West, to varying degrees, in the frontier towns of Nevada, Kansas, Montana, and South Dakota.

Gun control was not just in rowdy frontier towns. The practice was started in Southern states, which were among the first to enact laws against concealed carry of guns and knives, in the early 1800s. While a few citizens challenged the bans in court, most lost. Both Alabama and Louisiana had statewide bans on carrying weapons in cities and towns. In the 1800's there were twice as many states with concealed gun regulations as today.

If you were to ask the legendary lawmen of the old west what they thought of the idea of arming citizens to control crime, they would find such an idea insane. Frontier towns with and without gun legislation were violent places, but those without restrictions were far worse.

Gun Control Is as Old as the Old West | History | Smithsonian

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That would never happen because no state will go that route unless they get a huge cut like in pot states. You are not going to diminish drug usage by making it legal. You will only increase the usage.

States that legalize, like CO, get huge profits from sales tax.
You are going to decrease usage when you make it legal, because then there no longer will be any anger or rebellion motivation. Government will gain back some credibility. People extremely resent drug prohibitions.

People don't use drugs out of anger or rebellion. They use drugs because they got hooked after taking prescription drugs, peer pressure where they didn't think much of it at the time, or recreational use to feel good, but not anger or rebellion.

Drugs have been around my entire life, and in fact, they considered my generation as the drug generation. Yet in spite of the laws that are no different today than back then, we have a huge problem with OD deaths and addiction. It's the ready availableness of the drugs that is the problem. You can't get hooked on something you have no access to.

Sure they do.
The government, your job, the news, etc., get you all upset, so you want pot to help you forget.
One does not smoke pot to get anger or rebellion, but to forget about anger, rebellion, frustration, etc.
But other drugs are entirely different, and far more dangerous.

You will stand an easier time getting people off of drugs than you will getting people to never have anger. But the anger you specified is that people can't get the drugs legally, and again, that's not why people use drugs. You don't use something because you are mad and angry that you can't legally use it.

With Prohibition of alcohol, use greatly increased. That was because speak easys became exotic, clandestine, and people felt they were sticking it to the man, whom they hated for attempting to interfere with their personal choices. When government prohibits something without any clear necessity, people are aware that is illegal and oppressive. They deliberately join a counter culture. When something is illegal, then profits are high, those dealing become powerful in the local social life. The credibility of the government, with its fake "Reefer Madness" videos becomes the enemy and considered evil. This is especially true in poor Black communities, where no one would ever consider cooperating with police. The police become the bad guy.

I have never read where alcohol usage increased with prohibition. Even if it was written, I wouldn't believe it for a minute.

Over half our population drinks alcohol today. I just can't believe bootlegger could produce enough illegal alcohol to supply half of the countries population.

How Many People Drink Alcohol in the United States?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I still wanna know where it says people who have served jail sentences can't bear arms in the constitution.

It doesn't, but taking away rights is part of the sentence you get when you committed a crime you knew would deny you those rights. In that sense, it was an option to no longer have those rights that you chose.

That's contradictory, Ray.

How so? You knew if you got caught robbing the bank, you would go to prison. You knew if you got caught, you would lose your right to vote. You knew if you got caught, you would probably never have a good paying job once you were released from prison, If you go caught, you would lose your right to own a firearm.

You made the choice to give up those rights when you committed the crime. So it's not like they were being taken away from you for no reason.

I'm a truck driver, and because of what I do for a living, I had rights taken away from me as well, and I didn't even do anything wrong.

It doesn't say it anywhere in the constitution. Which you correctly stated first. So any buts are superceded. Irrelevant. But you said but.

Just because it doesn't say it in the Constitution doesn't make it unconstitutional. If that were the case, it would be unconstitutional to imprison anybody as it prohibits your right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You don't have any of those rights when you get locked up.

 

[Rigby5]

I still wanna know where it says people who have served jail sentences can't bear arms in the constitution.

It doesn't, but taking away rights is part of the sentence you get when you committed a crime you knew would deny you those rights. In that sense, it was an option to no longer have those rights that you chose.

That's contradictory, Ray.

How so? You knew if you got caught robbing the bank, you would go to prison. You knew if you got caught, you would lose your right to vote. You knew if you got caught, you would probably never have a good paying job once you were released from prison, If you go caught, you would lose your right to own a firearm.

You made the choice to give up those rights when you committed the crime. So it's not like they were being taken away from you for no reason.

I'm a truck driver, and because of what I do for a living, I had rights taken away from me as well, and I didn't even do anything wrong.

y

Technically traffic laws are voluntary contractual obligations when you accept the license. That is because driving itself, is not really a right.
But government has no authority of its own.
So government can only act in the defense of the rights of others.
That means that it can incarcerate you when you harm others, in order to protect others.
But once out, there no longer is a legal valid justification for harming the convicted felon.
Government does not have that authority, as it defends no one.
In fact, by denying the right to vote, government is committing the crime of taxation without representation,

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Nobody chooses dope over a job and career unless they can't stop using the stuff. That is unless you want to say they chose dope because they couldn't quit.

And that is the way it should be. The last thing I want to see is a druggie wheeling around in an 80,000 lb 70 foot death machine.

Yes and no. I mean........I certainly don't want to drive around anybody who is intoxicated, especially in an 18 wheeler. However there is a distinct difference between being intoxicated and having residual drugs or alcohol in your system from what you were doing in your off duty hours.

A friend of mine works for ConWay express which was recently sold to another company. He told me that every driver gets pulled for a drug test after vacation. Why? Because vacation is when people let loose a bit, and residual THC can stay in your system from three to four weeks.

So they were not testing to see if you came back loaded, they tested to see what you did while on vacation, and to me, that's an invasion of privacy.

You want the job, stay clean. If you are using during your vacation then chances are you are also using when you aren't on vacation. Don't lie about it. It means a lot of lives are on the line for certain jobs. It's like when I was an Aircraft Specialist. Do you really want to fly on an Aircraft that a druggie worked on? Or when I worked High Scale. Certain jobs MUST be completely clean for the safety of everyone. I don't find ConWays drug policy wrong at all. If you do then maybe you should go work at something less dangerous.

That makes no sense and is an illegal invasion of privacy.
There is no drug that continues to have effect after 12 hours or so.
Just because the drug test can find minute traces in your urine, does not mean you are high, dangerous, or incapable of delicate work.
The government has no right or authority to say what you do, only that you do your job correctly.
And drug testing does not at all do that.

In my case, drug testing is a government requirement. However it's not so in other industries. Companies get breaks in their Workman's Compensation insurance if they participate in drug screenings for employees. But because government forces us to comply, I do find that a violation of our fourth Amendment rights.

You have the option to go work somewhere else. I hear that grocery baggers are probably not randomly drug tested.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I still wanna know where it says people who have served jail sentences can't bear arms in the constitution.

It doesn't, but taking away rights is part of the sentence you get when you committed a crime you knew would deny you those rights. In that sense, it was an option to no longer have those rights that you chose.

That's contradictory, Ray.

How so? You knew if you got caught robbing the bank, you would go to prison. You knew if you got caught, you would lose your right to vote. You knew if you got caught, you would probably never have a good paying job once you were released from prison, If you go caught, you would lose your right to own a firearm.

You made the choice to give up those rights when you committed the crime. So it's not like they were being taken away from you for no reason.

I'm a truck driver, and because of what I do for a living, I had rights taken away from me as well, and I didn't even do anything wrong.

It doesn't say it anywhere in the constitution. Which you correctly stated first. So any buts are superceded. Irrelevant. But you said but.

Just because it doesn't say it in the Constitution doesn't make it unconstitutional. If that were the case, it would be unconstitutional to imprison anybody as it prohibits your right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You don't have any of those rights when you get locked up.

I'll remind you of that in a later discussion when you try and move the goal post once again.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Just because it doesn't say it in the Constitution doesn't make it unconstitutional. If that were the case, it would be unconstitutional to imprison anybody as it prohibits your right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You don't have any of those rights when you get locked up.

Well, it is specific to say shall not infringe.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Technically traffic laws are voluntary contractual obligations when you accept the license. That is because driving itself, is not really a right.
But government has no authority of its own.
So government can only act in the defense of the rights of others.
That means that it can incarcerate you when you harm others, in order to protect others.
But once out, there no longer is a legal valid justification for harming the convicted felon.
Government does not have that authority, as it defends no one.
In fact, by denying the right to vote, government is committing the crime of taxation without representation,

Ironically we need 'license' to exercise our 2nd. Which is a right. And we have to involuntarily relinquish our 1st and 5th amendment rights in order to apply for license to require a gun.

Good grief. That's a 10th amendment violation itself. I don't recall that requirement to be a power of the federal government in the constitution either.

 

[Rigby5]

States that legalize, like CO, get huge profits from sales tax.
You are going to decrease usage when you make it legal, because then there no longer will be any anger or rebellion motivation. Government will gain back some credibility. People extremely resent drug prohibitions.

People don't use drugs out of anger or rebellion. They use drugs because they got hooked after taking prescription drugs, peer pressure where they didn't think much of it at the time, or recreational use to feel good, but not anger or rebellion.

Drugs have been around my entire life, and in fact, they considered my generation as the drug generation. Yet in spite of the laws that are no different today than back then, we have a huge problem with OD deaths and addiction. It's the ready availableness of the drugs that is the problem. You can't get hooked on something you have no access to.

Sure they do.
The government, your job, the news, etc., get you all upset, so you want pot to help you forget.
One does not smoke pot to get anger or rebellion, but to forget about anger, rebellion, frustration, etc.
But other drugs are entirely different, and far more dangerous.

You will stand an easier time getting people off of drugs than you will getting people to never have anger. But the anger you specified is that people can't get the drugs legally, and again, that's not why people use drugs. You don't use something because you are mad and angry that you can't legally use it.

With Prohibition of alcohol, use greatly increased. That was because speak easys became exotic, clandestine, and people felt they were sticking it to the man, whom they hated for attempting to interfere with their personal choices. When government prohibits something without any clear necessity, people are aware that is illegal and oppressive. They deliberately join a counter culture. When something is illegal, then profits are high, those dealing become powerful in the local social life. The credibility of the government, with its fake "Reefer Madness" videos becomes the enemy and considered evil. This is especially true in poor Black communities, where no one would ever consider cooperating with police. The police become the bad guy.

I have never read where alcohol usage increased with prohibition. Even if it was written, I wouldn't believe it for a minute.

Over half our population drinks alcohol today. I just can't believe bootlegger could produce enough illegal alcohol to supply half of the countries population.

How Many People Drink Alcohol in the United States?

The US was based on Puritans originally, so fewer used to drink alcohol than do now.
But Prohibition did not end the legal production of alcohol, as there was still near-beer, below .5%, and was marketed as a cereal beverage, and wine for religious purposes.
Bootleggers were not the main source of US alcohol during prohibition. Smuggling was. With immigrants, they just made their own.

 

[Rigby5]

I still wanna know where it says people who have served jail sentences can't bear arms in the constitution.

It doesn't, but taking away rights is part of the sentence you get when you committed a crime you knew would deny you those rights. In that sense, it was an option to no longer have those rights that you chose.

That's contradictory, Ray.

How so? You knew if you got caught robbing the bank, you would go to prison. You knew if you got caught, you would lose your right to vote. You knew if you got caught, you would probably never have a good paying job once you were released from prison, If you go caught, you would lose your right to own a firearm.

You made the choice to give up those rights when you committed the crime. So it's not like they were being taken away from you for no reason.

I'm a truck driver, and because of what I do for a living, I had rights taken away from me as well, and I didn't even do anything wrong.

It doesn't say it anywhere in the constitution. Which you correctly stated first. So any buts are superceded. Irrelevant. But you said but.

Just because it doesn't say it in the Constitution doesn't make it unconstitutional. If that were the case, it would be unconstitutional to imprison anybody as it prohibits your right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You don't have any of those rights when you get locked up.

That is not true.
If you had no rights when imprisoned, then someone could murder you and there would be no charges.
You rights can only legally be curtailed as necessary to defend the rights of others.

State authority does not have to be in the Constitution, only federal authority has to be explicitly granted in the Constitution.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It doesn't, but taking away rights is part of the sentence you get when you committed a crime you knew would deny you those rights. In that sense, it was an option to no longer have those rights that you chose.

That's contradictory, Ray.

How so? You knew if you got caught robbing the bank, you would go to prison. You knew if you got caught, you would lose your right to vote. You knew if you got caught, you would probably never have a good paying job once you were released from prison, If you go caught, you would lose your right to own a firearm.

You made the choice to give up those rights when you committed the crime. So it's not like they were being taken away from you for no reason.

I'm a truck driver, and because of what I do for a living, I had rights taken away from me as well, and I didn't even do anything wrong.

It doesn't say it anywhere in the constitution. Which you correctly stated first. So any buts are superceded. Irrelevant. But you said but.

Just because it doesn't say it in the Constitution doesn't make it unconstitutional. If that were the case, it would be unconstitutional to imprison anybody as it prohibits your right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You don't have any of those rights when you get locked up.

I'll remind you of that in a later discussion when you try and move the goal post once again.

Nobody ever moved anything. But if it makes you feel better.........

 

[Rigby5]

so while yes it's a "true" statement it's presented in a manner to make people think you can buy guns galore at a show and never have a check run on you.

It is a TRUE statement. Many gun show sales are done without background checks. Full stop.

Also...400,000 gun are stolen every year and 80% of guns used in crimes are either stolen (because there are so many unsecured in our society) or purchased through straw purchases or without background checks

That is just a lie.
Gun shows have always required background checks.
They are not requires by law, but by the fact gun shows always use government facilities, like National Guard armories, state fair grounds, etc, so background checks have always been required in the last 20 years.
Same with internet sales.
You have to have it sent to an FFL who does the background check.
And you are clearly lying, because 30% if guns used in crime are home made.
Most of the rest are smuggled through drug dealers.
Many are stolen, but you can not buy guns galore at a gun show without a background checks.
Anyone claiming you can, is lying.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It doesn't, but taking away rights is part of the sentence you get when you committed a crime you knew would deny you those rights. In that sense, it was an option to no longer have those rights that you chose.

That's contradictory, Ray.

How so? You knew if you got caught robbing the bank, you would go to prison. You knew if you got caught, you would lose your right to vote. You knew if you got caught, you would probably never have a good paying job once you were released from prison, If you go caught, you would lose your right to own a firearm.

You made the choice to give up those rights when you committed the crime. So it's not like they were being taken away from you for no reason.

I'm a truck driver, and because of what I do for a living, I had rights taken away from me as well, and I didn't even do anything wrong.

It doesn't say it anywhere in the constitution. Which you correctly stated first. So any buts are superceded. Irrelevant. But you said but.

Just because it doesn't say it in the Constitution doesn't make it unconstitutional. If that were the case, it would be unconstitutional to imprison anybody as it prohibits your right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You don't have any of those rights when you get locked up.

That is not true.
If you had no rights when imprisoned, then someone could murder you and there would be no charges.
You rights can only legally be curtailed as necessary to defend the rights of others.

State authority does not have to be in the Constitution, only federal authority has to be explicitly granted in the Constitution.

Wrong. States cannot implement laws that violate the US Constitution. It's part of being a member of the union.

For instance let's say my state created a law that said homosexuals can be discriminated against by state government and businesses. They can't do that because it would violate the US Constitution.

I never said you had no rights when in prison, I said you are denied certain rights, just like you willingly surrendered your right when you committed a crime.

 

[Rigby5]

Nobody chooses dope over a job and career unless they can't stop using the stuff. That is unless you want to say they chose dope because they couldn't quit.

And that is the way it should be. The last thing I want to see is a druggie wheeling around in an 80,000 lb 70 foot death machine.

Yes and no. I mean........I certainly don't want to drive around anybody who is intoxicated, especially in an 18 wheeler. However there is a distinct difference between being intoxicated and having residual drugs or alcohol in your system from what you were doing in your off duty hours.

A friend of mine works for ConWay express which was recently sold to another company. He told me that every driver gets pulled for a drug test after vacation. Why? Because vacation is when people let loose a bit, and residual THC can stay in your system from three to four weeks.

So they were not testing to see if you came back loaded, they tested to see what you did while on vacation, and to me, that's an invasion of privacy.

You want the job, stay clean. If you are using during your vacation then chances are you are also using when you aren't on vacation. Don't lie about it. It means a lot of lives are on the line for certain jobs. It's like when I was an Aircraft Specialist. Do you really want to fly on an Aircraft that a druggie worked on? Or when I worked High Scale. Certain jobs MUST be completely clean for the safety of everyone. I don't find ConWays drug policy wrong at all. If you do then maybe you should go work at something less dangerous.

So your stance is that it's wrong if somebody comes to work totally straight, but uses drugs on weekends or after hours. But it's okay to come to work straight, as long as you don't use while not on duty.

To me, I don't see the difference really, just as long as you are not intoxicated while on the job.

I didn't say even close to what you "Think" is said. Once again, you are telling me what I think. If you have a dangerous job you shouldn't be using drugs at all. And your drinking should be held to an extreme minimum. I don't know about you but when I was a driver, I was on call most of the time. Not on call officially but I was available on call when needed. When I did High Scale, ANY amount of booze or drugs even a day or two was probably dangerous. Yah, I know, High Scalers don't pay much attention to that but they should for booze. But when you are operating without a "Net" 400 to 1000 feet in the air in high winds anything can happen. The Company had a zero tolerance. Even so, I would have never taken the chance. The money was just too damned good. You made the money and then got the hell away from it as soon as you could.

No, that is ignorant.
What the testing is looking for is the alcohol breaks down into, and NOT any actual alcohol. Same with drugs. So then NO, a person who fails the test is NOT necessarily a danger to anyone at all. In which case it is illegal to harm them or invade their privacy. The only test they can legally do is a coordination, speed, or intelligence test.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

People don't use drugs out of anger or rebellion. They use drugs because they got hooked after taking prescription drugs, peer pressure where they didn't think much of it at the time, or recreational use to feel good, but not anger or rebellion.

Drugs have been around my entire life, and in fact, they considered my generation as the drug generation. Yet in spite of the laws that are no different today than back then, we have a huge problem with OD deaths and addiction. It's the ready availableness of the drugs that is the problem. You can't get hooked on something you have no access to.

Sure they do.
The government, your job, the news, etc., get you all upset, so you want pot to help you forget.
One does not smoke pot to get anger or rebellion, but to forget about anger, rebellion, frustration, etc.
But other drugs are entirely different, and far more dangerous.

You will stand an easier time getting people off of drugs than you will getting people to never have anger. But the anger you specified is that people can't get the drugs legally, and again, that's not why people use drugs. You don't use something because you are mad and angry that you can't legally use it.

With Prohibition of alcohol, use greatly increased. That was because speak easys became exotic, clandestine, and people felt they were sticking it to the man, whom they hated for attempting to interfere with their personal choices. When government prohibits something without any clear necessity, people are aware that is illegal and oppressive. They deliberately join a counter culture. When something is illegal, then profits are high, those dealing become powerful in the local social life. The credibility of the government, with its fake "Reefer Madness" videos becomes the enemy and considered evil. This is especially true in poor Black communities, where no one would ever consider cooperating with police. The police become the bad guy.

I have never read where alcohol usage increased with prohibition. Even if it was written, I wouldn't believe it for a minute.

Over half our population drinks alcohol today. I just can't believe bootlegger could produce enough illegal alcohol to supply half of the countries population.

How Many People Drink Alcohol in the United States?

The US was based on Puritans originally, so fewer used to drink alcohol than do now.
But Prohibition did not end the legal production of alcohol, as there was still near-beer, below .5%, and was marketed as a cereal beverage, and wine for religious purposes.
Bootleggers were not the main source of US alcohol during prohibition. Smuggling was. With immigrants, they just made their own.

Actually the home I live in now was a bootleg house. There are secrete compartments in my apartment that nobody today would have thought of. It was explained to my by the elderly property owner I purchased it from that his family was in the business of bootlegging, and constructed the house to hide the beverages when they suspected a raid.

That aside, people of many years ago were more law abiding than people of today. So while there may have been bootleggers, and perhaps people that smuggled in alcohol, most didn't participate in drinking. People back then were more concerned about money and putting food on the table.

 

[Rigby5]

Ya, they don't seem to have ANY hillbillies, despite all the hills. What should we be doing?

Buy more guns and ammo...

The problem with your Meme is it's a lie. And riding your bike wearing your FLN will get you landed in a jail cell. MOST Swiss have passed on taking their guns when they leave the military even though most have that right. And once you pass on it, it's a real bear to get the right back again. And a Swiss NEVER EVER take shis weapon out into public just to show it off.

You are totally wrong.
All Swiss are required to take military training, and almost all choose to keep their arms after their stint is up.
It is not at all hard to get arms in Switzerland regardless of the one they give you.
And everyone is encouraged to take your weapons out in public, for constant refresher, competitions, etc.
I have Swiss relatives.