trader_4 wrote:

As to legalizing pot, don't you think it might be a good idea to slow it
down a bit? See what happens in CO and OR after a few years? Already
there appears to be a rise in auto accidents with people under the
influence, for example. If it works out OK there after 5 years or so,
then maybe it's OK to legalize it elsewhere. But my main point here was
that the DC mayor appears to be flipping off Congress.


I don't see a reason to wait. The reason it was outlawed was based on
xenophobia and corporate interest; DuPont was just coming out with synthetic
fibers and hemp competed with that.

On Thu, 05 Mar 2015 10:52:52 -0600, G. Morgan
wrote:

G,

To your question of foster parents bill in Nevada, it turns out that
foster parent have to keep ammo and guns locked up separately, even
though they have concealed carry permits and.or are law enforcement.

Assembly Bill 167 would allow them to have loaded weapons...

http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/nevada-legislature/vegas-couple-want-right-carry-guns-while-fostering-kids

On Thursday, March 5, 2015 at 11:52:56 AM UTC-5, G. Morgan wrote:
trader_4 wrote:

As to legalizing pot, don't you think it might be a good idea to slow it
down a bit? See what happens in CO and OR after a few years? Already
there appears to be a rise in auto accidents with people under the
influence, for example. If it works out OK there after 5 years or so,
then maybe it's OK to legalize it elsewhere. But my main point here was
that the DC mayor appears to be flipping off Congress.


I don't see a reason to wait. The reason it was outlawed was based on
xenophobia and corporate interest; DuPont was just coming out with synthetic
fibers and hemp competed with that.

Baloney. Hemp products, eg fiber, have been and continue to be legal.
The drug comes from a specific cultivar. Anything else you want to try
to make up and turn into a nutty conspiracy?

On 03/05/2015 10:07 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Thursday, March 5, 2015 at 11:52:56 AM UTC-5, G. Morgan wrote:
trader_4 wrote:

As to legalizing pot, don't you think it might be a good idea to slow it
down a bit? See what happens in CO and OR after a few years? Already
there appears to be a rise in auto accidents with people under the
influence, for example. If it works out OK there after 5 years or so,
then maybe it's OK to legalize it elsewhere. But my main point here was
that the DC mayor appears to be flipping off Congress.


I don't see a reason to wait. The reason it was outlawed was based on
xenophobia and corporate interest; DuPont was just coming out with synthetic
fibers and hemp competed with that.

Baloney. Hemp products, eg fiber, have been and continue to be legal.
The drug comes from a specific cultivar. Anything else you want to try
to make up and turn into a nutty conspiracy?


Hi Trader_4,

Ha! You are "usually" the one with all the facts. This
isn't right. I tell you, this just *isn't right*! You
will have to do better next time! I do believe in
"redemption" after all! :-)

Here is your "nutty conspiracy":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemp

"United States: Hemp is illegal to grow in the U.S.
under Federal law because of its relation to marijuana,
and any imported hemp products must meet a zero tolerance
level. It is considered a controlled substance under the
Controlled Substances Act (P.L. 91-513; 21 U.S.C. 801 et
seq.). Some states have made the cultivation of industrial
hemp legal, but farmers in North Dakota, Hawaii, Kentucky,
Maine, Maryland, Oregon, California, Montana, West Virginia
and Vermont have not yet begun to grow it because of
resistance from the federal Drug Enforcement Administration.
In 2013, after the legalization of marijuana in the state,
several farmers in Colorado planted and harvested several
acres of hemp, bringing in the first hemp crop in the United
States in over half a century.[84] Colorado,[85] Vermont,
California, and North Dakota have passed laws enabling hemp
licensure. All four states are waiting for permission to grow
hemp from the DEA. Currently,[86] North Dakota representatives
are pursuing legal measures to force DEA approval.[87] Oregon
has licensed industrial hemp as of August 2009.[88] In
February 2014, Congress passed an agriculture bill that eased
restrictions on cultivation in 10 states.[89]

And its pollen ruins the "specific cultivar". Chuckle.

-T

I am seeing more hemp products lately. Maybe we should dump
subsidies for corn alcohol and let the farmers grow hemp,
at their own expense, not the taxpayers!

On Thu, 05 Mar 2015 10:41:37 -0800, T wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemp

"United States: Hemp is illegal to grow in the U.S.
under Federal law because of its relation to marijuana,
and any imported hemp products must meet a zero tolerance
level. It is considered a controlled substance under the
Controlled Substances Act (P.L. 91-513; 21 U.S.C. 801 et
seq.). Some states have made the cultivation of industrial
hemp legal, but farmers in North Dakota, Hawaii, Kentucky,
Maine, Maryland, Oregon, California, Montana, West Virginia
and Vermont have not yet begun to grow it because of
resistance from the federal Drug Enforcement Administration.
In 2013, after the legalization of marijuana in the state,
several farmers in Colorado planted and harvested several
acres of hemp, bringing in the first hemp crop in the United
States in over half a century.[84] Colorado,[85] Vermont,
California, and North Dakota have passed laws enabling hemp
licensure. All four states are waiting for permission to grow
hemp from the DEA. Currently,[86] North Dakota representatives
are pursuing legal measures to force DEA approval.[87] Oregon
has licensed industrial hemp as of August 2009.[88] In
February 2014, Congress passed an agriculture bill that eased
restrictions on cultivation in 10 states.[89]

Why is hemp illegal?

"...The United States was the first country to introduce laws to
destroy hemp plants, regardless of their intended use. That law was
the result of political pressure exerted by the forestry industry and
the Dupont corporation, which had just patented oil and coal based
plastics production."

https://www.greenleft.org.au/node/20329

On 3/5/2015 11:52 AM, G. Morgan wrote:
trader_4 wrote:

As to legalizing pot, don't you think it might be a good idea to slow it
down a bit? See what happens in CO and OR after a few years?


I don't see a reason to wait. The reason it was outlawed was based on
xenophobia and corporate interest; DuPont was just coming out with synthetic
fibers and hemp competed with that.


Nothing about people smoking it to get stoned
and mellow? Riiii....ggghhhttt......

-
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

On Thursday, March 5, 2015 at 1:41:44 PM UTC-5, T wrote:
On 03/05/2015 10:07 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Thursday, March 5, 2015 at 11:52:56 AM UTC-5, G. Morgan wrote:
trader_4 wrote:

As to legalizing pot, don't you think it might be a good idea to slow it
down a bit? See what happens in CO and OR after a few years? Already
there appears to be a rise in auto accidents with people under the
influence, for example. If it works out OK there after 5 years or so,
then maybe it's OK to legalize it elsewhere. But my main point here was
that the DC mayor appears to be flipping off Congress.


I don't see a reason to wait. The reason it was outlawed was based on
xenophobia and corporate interest; DuPont was just coming out with synthetic
fibers and hemp competed with that.

Baloney. Hemp products, eg fiber, have been and continue to be legal.
The drug comes from a specific cultivar. Anything else you want to try
to make up and turn into a nutty conspiracy?


Hi Trader_4,

Ha! You are "usually" the one with all the facts. This
isn't right. I tell you, this just *isn't right*! You
will have to do better next time! I do believe in
"redemption" after all! :-)

Here is your "nutty conspiracy":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemp



Woah theere fellah. The poster claimed that the reason pot was
made illegal was because of Dupont. I don't think that's an established
fact, it's speculation. Pot was already under regulation, not only
in the USA, but other countries as well. And products produced
from hemp, are as I stated, legal in the USA. It's just the growing
of hemp, as you point out, that's illegal. Apparently folks also point
the finger for the growing ban on others besides Dupont, eg Hearst,
alleging he was afraid it was going to be used to make newspaper,
competing with his forest based newspaper product.

So, who knows. Is it possible? Perhaps, but the Dupont angle doesn't
make a lot of sense. Obviously nylon has a lot of special properties
that hemp doesn't, ie it's waterproof, you can make stockings out of it,
etc. And hemp production had been declining for years before the 1937
ban. I just don't see the logic or evidence.

On Thursday, March 5, 2015 at 2:24:47 PM UTC-5, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 05 Mar 2015 10:41:37 -0800, T wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemp

"United States: Hemp is illegal to grow in the U.S.
under Federal law because of its relation to marijuana,
and any imported hemp products must meet a zero tolerance
level. It is considered a controlled substance under the
Controlled Substances Act (P.L. 91-513; 21 U.S.C. 801 et
seq.). Some states have made the cultivation of industrial
hemp legal, but farmers in North Dakota, Hawaii, Kentucky,
Maine, Maryland, Oregon, California, Montana, West Virginia
and Vermont have not yet begun to grow it because of
resistance from the federal Drug Enforcement Administration.
In 2013, after the legalization of marijuana in the state,
several farmers in Colorado planted and harvested several
acres of hemp, bringing in the first hemp crop in the United
States in over half a century.[84] Colorado,[85] Vermont,
California, and North Dakota have passed laws enabling hemp
licensure. All four states are waiting for permission to grow
hemp from the DEA. Currently,[86] North Dakota representatives
are pursuing legal measures to force DEA approval.[87] Oregon
has licensed industrial hemp as of August 2009.[88] In
February 2014, Congress passed an agriculture bill that eased
restrictions on cultivation in 10 states.[89]

Why is hemp illegal?

"...The United States was the first country to introduce laws to
destroy hemp plants, regardless of their intended use. That law was
the result of political pressure exerted by the forestry industry and
the Dupont corporation, which had just patented oil and coal based
plastics production."

https://www.greenleft.org.au/node/20329

And your source is a claim made by "greenleft"? Good grief,
I'm beginning to worry about you Oren. What's next, a cite from
moveon.org?

On Thu, 5 Mar 2015 12:44:22 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

Why is hemp illegal?

"...The United States was the first country to introduce laws to
destroy hemp plants, regardless of their intended use. That law was
the result of political pressure exerted by the forestry industry and
the Dupont corporation, which had just patented oil and coal based
plastics production."

https://www.greenleft.org.au/node/20329

And your source is a claim made by "greenleft"? Good grief,
I'm beginning to worry about you Oren. What's next, a cite from
moveon.org?

Relax Trader. Other sources also point to hemp being banned.
Government in bed with corporations. Hemp can be used in ~ 25,000
products. Who wins and who losses?

On Thursday, March 5, 2015 at 4:01:49 PM UTC-5, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 5 Mar 2015 12:44:22 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

Why is hemp illegal?

"...The United States was the first country to introduce laws to
destroy hemp plants, regardless of their intended use. That law was
the result of political pressure exerted by the forestry industry and
the Dupont corporation, which had just patented oil and coal based
plastics production."

https://www.greenleft.org.au/node/20329

And your source is a claim made by "greenleft"? Good grief,
I'm beginning to worry about you Oren. What's next, a cite from
moveon.org?

Relax Trader. Other sources also point to hemp being banned.
Government in bed with corporations. Hemp can be used in ~ 25,000
products. Who wins and who losses?

The point is there isn't much, if any, evidence, beyond just the
accusation that Dupont was behind banning the growing of hemp.
Hemp sales were apparently declining for years before the 1937 ban.
And nylon has huge differences in properties compared to hemp.
If you have credible sources with something more than just making
the accusation, I'd be happy to see them.

On Thu, 05 Mar 2015 14:52:26 -0500, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

On 3/5/2015 11:52 AM, G. Morgan wrote:
trader_4 wrote:

As to legalizing pot, don't you think it might be a good idea to slow it
down a bit? See what happens in CO and OR after a few years?


I don't see a reason to wait. The reason it was outlawed was based on
xenophobia and corporate interest; DuPont was just coming out with synthetic
fibers and hemp competed with that.


Nothing about people smoking it to get stoned
and mellow? Riiii....ggghhhttt......

People drink tea and become "mellow". At least, I do.
Chocolate too. Hardly a reason to spend billions of dollars outlawing
tea and chocolate is it ?
And I won't even start on sex....
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012

On Thu, 5 Mar 2015 12:41:58 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Thursday, March 5, 2015 at 1:41:44 PM UTC-5, T wrote:
On 03/05/2015 10:07 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Thursday, March 5, 2015 at 11:52:56 AM UTC-5, G. Morgan wrote:
trader_4 wrote:

As to legalizing pot, don't you think it might be a good idea to slow it
down a bit? See what happens in CO and OR after a few years? Already
there appears to be a rise in auto accidents with people under the
influence, for example. If it works out OK there after 5 years or so,
then maybe it's OK to legalize it elsewhere. But my main point here was
that the DC mayor appears to be flipping off Congress.


I don't see a reason to wait. The reason it was outlawed was based on
xenophobia and corporate interest; DuPont was just coming out with synthetic
fibers and hemp competed with that.

Baloney. Hemp products, eg fiber, have been and continue to be legal.
The drug comes from a specific cultivar. Anything else you want to try
to make up and turn into a nutty conspiracy?


Hi Trader_4,

Ha! You are "usually" the one with all the facts. This
isn't right. I tell you, this just *isn't right*! You
will have to do better next time! I do believe in
"redemption" after all! :-)

Here is your "nutty conspiracy":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemp



Woah theere fellah. The poster claimed that the reason pot was
made illegal was because of Dupont. I don't think that's an established
fact, it's speculation. Pot was already under regulation, not only
in the USA, but other countries as well. And products produced
from hemp, are as I stated, legal in the USA. It's just the growing
of hemp, as you point out, that's illegal. Apparently folks also point
the finger for the growing ban on others besides Dupont, eg Hearst,
alleging he was afraid it was going to be used to make newspaper,
competing with his forest based newspaper product.

So, who knows. Is it possible? Perhaps, but the Dupont angle doesn't
make a lot of sense. Obviously nylon has a lot of special properties
that hemp doesn't, ie it's waterproof, you can make stockings out of it,
etc. And hemp production had been declining for years before the 1937
ban. I just don't see the logic or evidence.

of banning it.
Nor do I.
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012

On Thu, 5 Mar 2015 13:23:23 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

The point is there isn't much, if any, evidence, beyond just the
accusation that Dupont was behind banning the growing of hemp.
Hemp sales were apparently declining for years before the 1937 ban.
And nylon has huge differences in properties compared to hemp.
If you have credible sources with something more than just making
the accusation, I'd be happy to see them.

Fair enough. Why would the DEA seek exemptions of products made from
hemp? At one time it was a Schedule I controlled substance, right?

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 9, 2001 / Rules
and Regulations

Perhaps I missed something

On Thursday, March 5, 2015 at 5:12:03 PM UTC-5, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 5 Mar 2015 13:23:23 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

The point is there isn't much, if any, evidence, beyond just the
accusation that Dupont was behind banning the growing of hemp.
Hemp sales were apparently declining for years before the 1937 ban.
And nylon has huge differences in properties compared to hemp.
If you have credible sources with something more than just making
the accusation, I'd be happy to see them.

Fair enough. Why would the DEA seek exemptions of products made from
hemp? At one time it was a Schedule I controlled substance, right?

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 9, 2001 / Rules
and Regulations

Perhaps I missed something

Who knows what goes on in DC. All I'm saying is that the Dupont, Heart
and similar angles sounds like urban myth to me. Here's a pro pot guy
who says it's baloney and does a good job debunking it, factually, point by point, tracing it back to it's source:

http://www.alternet.org/story/77339/...spiracy_theory


Another allegation is that Hearst was in on the conspiracy, because he
allegedly had timber interests and didn't want hemp competing with that.
That's also debunked, with people pointing out Hearst was actually
a big consumer of paper for his newspapers, would have benefited from
more sources and had no forest of tree, etc. Oh, and apparently hemp
isn't much good for making newspapers anyway.

On Thu, 5 Mar 2015 14:47:53 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

Another allegation is that Hearst was in on the conspiracy, because he
allegedly had timber interests and didn't want hemp competing with that.
That's also debunked, with people pointing out Hearst was actually
a big consumer of paper for his newspapers, would have benefited from
more sources and had no forest of tree, etc. Oh, and apparently hemp
isn't much good for making newspapers anyway.

This is getting silly. So why did the American government
spend billions of dollars and jail countless innocent people for
something relatively harmless (if compared to alcohol or tobacco).
You tell us.
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012

On Thursday, March 5, 2015 at 6:39:18 PM UTC-5, Shadow wrote:
On Thu, 5 Mar 2015 14:47:53 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

Another allegation is that Hearst was in on the conspiracy, because he
allegedly had timber interests and didn't want hemp competing with that.
That's also debunked, with people pointing out Hearst was actually
a big consumer of paper for his newspapers, would have benefited from
more sources and had no forest of tree, etc. Oh, and apparently hemp
isn't much good for making newspapers anyway.

This is getting silly. So why did the American government
spend billions of dollars and jail countless innocent people for
something relatively harmless (if compared to alcohol or tobacco).
You tell us.
[]'s


The stated reasons at the time were that govts at various levels
in the USA at the time didn' believe it was relatively harmless.
They thought it was dangerous. There had been a history of moving
in the direction of making it and other drugs illegal within parts
of the USA and other countries for decades. The action in 1937 was
just the big, final step. It's interesting
that you also want to compare it to alchohol. It is a good and
relevant comparison. Just a decade prior
to banning marijuana, the govt also had banned alcohol. Was that
due to Dupont nylon and Hearst non-existent lumber forests too? How
about if I came up with a conspiracy theory that the Volsted act
was passed via a conspiracy involving Al Capone and Joe Kennedy?
Would you instantly buy that too?

The point is if you want to come up with conspiracy theories,
you need something more than just stating some alleged link. You need
something to back it up. And it should make sense. The Dupont,
Hearst, similar stuff, from what I've seen, there is nothing beyond
the allegation itself and the arguments are full of huge holes.

On Friday, March 6, 2015 at 10:05:54 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Fri, 6 Mar 2015 05:56:28 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Thursday, March 5, 2015 at 6:39:18 PM UTC-5, Shadow wrote:
On Thu, 5 Mar 2015 14:47:53 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

Another allegation is that Hearst was in on the conspiracy, because he
allegedly had timber interests and didn't want hemp competing with that.
That's also debunked, with people pointing out Hearst was actually
a big consumer of paper for his newspapers, would have benefited from
more sources and had no forest of tree, etc. Oh, and apparently hemp
isn't much good for making newspapers anyway.

This is getting silly. So why did the American government
spend billions of dollars and jail countless innocent people for
something relatively harmless (if compared to alcohol or tobacco).
You tell us.
[]'s


The stated reasons at the time were that govts at various levels
in the USA at the time didn' believe it was relatively harmless.
They thought it was dangerous. There had been a history of moving
in the direction of making it and other drugs illegal within parts
of the USA and other countries for decades. The action in 1937 was
just the big, final step. It's interesting
that you also want to compare it to alchohol. It is a good and
relevant comparison. Just a decade prior
to banning marijuana, the govt also had banned alcohol. Was that
due to Dupont nylon and Hearst non-existent lumber forests too? How
about if I came up with a conspiracy theory that the Volsted act
was passed via a conspiracy involving Al Capone and Joe Kennedy?
Would you instantly buy that too?

The point is if you want to come up with conspiracy theories,
you need something more than just stating some alleged link. You need
something to back it up. And it should make sense. The Dupont,
Hearst, similar stuff, from what I've seen, there is nothing beyond
the allegation itself and the arguments are full of huge holes.


More accurate would be to say they had thousands of prohibition agents
who were not going to have a job anymore and a government agency
looking for a mission.
Add to that the perception that it was only the blacks and Mexicans
who used pot and it was easy to ban it.

On the face of it, that argument seems a lot more logical than the
Dupont/Hearst thing, that's for sure.

On Fri, 6 Mar 2015 05:56:28 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Thursday, March 5, 2015 at 6:39:18 PM UTC-5, Shadow wrote:
On Thu, 5 Mar 2015 14:47:53 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

Another allegation is that Hearst was in on the conspiracy, because he
allegedly had timber interests and didn't want hemp competing with that.
That's also debunked, with people pointing out Hearst was actually
a big consumer of paper for his newspapers, would have benefited from
more sources and had no forest of tree, etc. Oh, and apparently hemp
isn't much good for making newspapers anyway.

This is getting silly. So why did the American government
spend billions of dollars and jail countless innocent people for
something relatively harmless (if compared to alcohol or tobacco).
You tell us.
[]'s


The stated reasons at the time were that govts at various levels
in the USA at the time didn' believe it was relatively harmless.
They thought it was dangerous. There had been a history of moving
in the direction of making it and other drugs illegal within parts
of the USA and other countries for decades. The action in 1937 was
just the big, final step. It's interesting
that you also want to compare it to alchohol. It is a good and
relevant comparison. Just a decade prior
to banning marijuana, the govt also had banned alcohol. Was that
due to Dupont nylon and Hearst non-existent lumber forests too? How
about if I came up with a conspiracy theory that the Volsted act
was passed via a conspiracy involving Al Capone and Joe Kennedy?
Would you instantly buy that too?

The point is if you want to come up with conspiracy theories,
you need something more than just stating some alleged link. You need
something to back it up. And it should make sense. The Dupont,
Hearst, similar stuff, from what I've seen, there is nothing beyond
the allegation itself and the arguments are full of huge holes.

Yes, they banned alcohol, and were overwhelmed by the crime
wave and corruption that followed. Also, countless useful members of
society were jailed for drinking a beer.
But for a very strange reason they decided to make the same
mistake with a much weaker drug, even after having it hammered into
them that prohibition was EVIL.
I still can't understand why. If it wasn't because of big
business or the republicans... lemme guess ... witches ?
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012

On Friday, March 6, 2015 at 1:03:14 PM UTC-5, Shadow wrote:
On Fri, 6 Mar 2015 05:56:28 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Thursday, March 5, 2015 at 6:39:18 PM UTC-5, Shadow wrote:
On Thu, 5 Mar 2015 14:47:53 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

Another allegation is that Hearst was in on the conspiracy, because he
allegedly had timber interests and didn't want hemp competing with that.
That's also debunked, with people pointing out Hearst was actually
a big consumer of paper for his newspapers, would have benefited from
more sources and had no forest of tree, etc. Oh, and apparently hemp
isn't much good for making newspapers anyway.

This is getting silly. So why did the American government
spend billions of dollars and jail countless innocent people for
something relatively harmless (if compared to alcohol or tobacco).
You tell us.
[]'s


The stated reasons at the time were that govts at various levels
in the USA at the time didn' believe it was relatively harmless.
They thought it was dangerous. There had been a history of moving
in the direction of making it and other drugs illegal within parts
of the USA and other countries for decades. The action in 1937 was
just the big, final step. It's interesting
that you also want to compare it to alchohol. It is a good and
relevant comparison. Just a decade prior
to banning marijuana, the govt also had banned alcohol. Was that
due to Dupont nylon and Hearst non-existent lumber forests too? How
about if I came up with a conspiracy theory that the Volsted act
was passed via a conspiracy involving Al Capone and Joe Kennedy?
Would you instantly buy that too?

The point is if you want to come up with conspiracy theories,
you need something more than just stating some alleged link. You need
something to back it up. And it should make sense. The Dupont,
Hearst, similar stuff, from what I've seen, there is nothing beyond
the allegation itself and the arguments are full of huge holes.

Yes, they banned alcohol, and were overwhelmed by the crime
wave and corruption that followed. Also, countless useful members of
society were jailed for drinking a beer.
But for a very strange reason they decided to make the same
mistake with a much weaker drug, even after having it hammered into
them that prohibition was EVIL.
I still can't understand why. If it wasn't because of big
business or the republicans... lemme guess ... witches ?
[]'s

The ban took place in 1937. The Senate had 69 Dems, just 25 Republicans.
The House, 322 Dems, 123 Republicans. FDR ruled the WH. But it figures
you libs would try to blame Republicans. It's what you libs do. Nice
job further discrediting your own cause.

On Thu, 05 Mar 2015 20:37:16 -0300, Shadow wrote:
This is getting silly. So why did the American government
spend billions of dollars and jail countless innocent people for
something relatively harmless (if compared to alcohol or tobacco).
You tell us.

I'll try. Start in the 1980's. About that time, the prison had tons
of money. Mandatory sentences. One prison had 5 staff getting in the
way of what 1 staff would do in eight hours. Fighting the Cocaine
Cowboys, Columbians and other do bad's, and stink eyes, red headed
step child.

Federal prisons double, populations doubled. Strategic plans over
years was to close minimum security camps. Transform to some
"privately owned prisons".
--
I like Guns and Titties

On Fri, 6 Mar 2015 10:25:21 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

The ban took place in 1937. The Senate had 69 Dems, just 25 Republicans.
The House, 322 Dems, 123 Republicans. FDR ruled the WH. But it figures
you libs would try to blame Republicans. It's what you libs do. Nice
job further discrediting your own cause.

I'm sorry, I tend to extrapolate. Here in Brasil the left wing
always vote for the right to keep and bear arms, and the right to do
what you want with your body (as long as it does not harm others), so
they are pro decriminalizing pot and abortions, but radically against
alcohol while driving, use of crack-cocaine or mandatory
sterilization.
So America is the opposite..... how strange. It's usually the
right wing that come up with laws like the Patriot act, the root of
all evil. No left wing government here has ever threatened a basic
civil right.
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012

On Saturday, March 7, 2015 at 7:38:26 AM UTC-5, Shadow wrote:
On Fri, 6 Mar 2015 10:25:21 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

The ban took place in 1937. The Senate had 69 Dems, just 25 Republicans.
The House, 322 Dems, 123 Republicans. FDR ruled the WH. But it figures
you libs would try to blame Republicans. It's what you libs do. Nice
job further discrediting your own cause.

I'm sorry, I tend to extrapolate. Here in Brasil the left wing
always vote for the right to keep and bear arms, and the right to do
what you want with your body (as long as it does not harm others), so
they are pro decriminalizing pot and abortions, but radically against
alcohol while driving, use of crack-cocaine or mandatory
sterilization.
So America is the opposite..... how strange. It's usually the
right wing that come up with laws like the Patriot act, the root of
all evil. No left wing government here has ever threatened a basic
civil right.
[]'s


You don't have to worry about the Patriot act. Being Brazil, and
not a prime target, you can just ignore muslim terrorism and let
the major countries of the world deal with the problem. Convenient
for you. For the record, the Patriot Act passed with overwhelming
bipartisan support. Only one Senator, Dem Russ Feingold voted
against it. In the House it also had huge Democrat support, even
Pelosi voted for it. So there goes that angle.....again.

On Sat, 7 Mar 2015 06:27:05 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, March 7, 2015 at 7:38:26 AM UTC-5, Shadow wrote:
On Fri, 6 Mar 2015 10:25:21 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

The ban took place in 1937. The Senate had 69 Dems, just 25 Republicans.
The House, 322 Dems, 123 Republicans. FDR ruled the WH. But it figures
you libs would try to blame Republicans. It's what you libs do. Nice
job further discrediting your own cause.

I'm sorry, I tend to extrapolate. Here in Brasil the left wing
always vote for the right to keep and bear arms, and the right to do
what you want with your body (as long as it does not harm others), so
they are pro decriminalizing pot and abortions, but radically against
alcohol while driving, use of crack-cocaine or mandatory
sterilization.
So America is the opposite..... how strange. It's usually the
right wing that come up with laws like the Patriot act, the root of
all evil. No left wing government here has ever threatened a basic
civil right.
[]'s


You don't have to worry about the Patriot act. Being Brazil, and
not a prime target, you can just ignore muslim terrorism and let
the major countries of the world deal with the problem. Convenient
for you. For the record, the Patriot Act passed with overwhelming
bipartisan support. Only one Senator, Dem Russ Feingold voted
against it. In the House it also had huge Democrat support, even
Pelosi voted for it. So there goes that angle.....again.

Far more people here die from gunshot wounds and stabbings in
a week than have died from "terrorist attacks" in America in the last
10 years. But that does not terrify anyone. Does that mean we are not
cowards, or does it mean that the last dictatorship knocked some sense
into us and we would rather be free ? Or both ?
PS No "Muslim terrorism" here, but tens of thousands of
Muslims. We avoid killing and burning their children, so we're
friends.
TIA
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012

On Sat, 7 Mar 2015 06:27:05 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

You don't have to worry about the Patriot act. Being Brazil, and
not a prime target, you can just ignore muslim terrorism and let
the major countries of the world deal with the problem. Convenient
for you. For the record, the Patriot Act passed with overwhelming
bipartisan support.

http://www.majorgeeks.com/news/file/...eeinternet.jpg

We don't get those shops here. I envy you.
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012

On 3/7/2015 7:27 AM, trader_4 wrote:
Convenient
for you. For the record, the Patriot Act passed with overwhelming
bipartisan support. Only one Senator, Dem Russ Feingold voted
against it. In the House it also had huge Democrat support, even
Pelosi voted for it. So there goes that angle.....again.

Bipartisan spinelessness is nothing new.

On Sat, 07 Mar 2015 11:32:49 -0700, rbowman
wrote:

On 3/7/2015 7:27 AM, trader_4 wrote:
Convenient
for you. For the record, the Patriot Act passed with overwhelming
bipartisan support. Only one Senator, Dem Russ Feingold voted
against it. In the House it also had huge Democrat support, even
Pelosi voted for it. So there goes that angle.....again.

Bipartisan spinelessness is nothing new.

Been around for ages. The spine is not connected to the skull.
--
"Dodgeball in Burkas" -- Greg Gutfeld

On 03/07/2015 10:40 AM, Oren wrote:
On Sat, 07 Mar 2015 11:32:49 -0700, rbowman
wrote:

On 3/7/2015 7:27 AM, trader_4 wrote:
Convenient
for you. For the record, the Patriot Act passed with overwhelming
bipartisan support. Only one Senator, Dem Russ Feingold voted
against it. In the House it also had huge Democrat support, even
Pelosi voted for it. So there goes that angle.....again.

Bipartisan spinelessness is nothing new.

Been around for ages. The spine is not connected to the skull.



“Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of
Congress. But I repeat myself.”

“Fleas can be taught nearly anything that a Congressman
can.”

“An honest man in politics shines more there than he
would elsewhere.”

“There is no distinctly native American criminal class
except Congress.”

“All Congresses and Parliaments have a kindly feeling
for idiots, and a compassion for them, on account of
personal experience and heredity.”

--Mark Twain

On Sat, 07 Mar 2015 13:03:17 -0800, T wrote:

“All Congresses and Parliaments have a kindly feeling
for idiots, and a compassion for them, on account of
personal experience and heredity.”

--Mark Twain

Amen. Couldn't say it better.

On Saturday, March 7, 2015 at 11:43:25 AM UTC-5, Shadow wrote:
On Sat, 7 Mar 2015 06:27:05 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, March 7, 2015 at 7:38:26 AM UTC-5, Shadow wrote:
On Fri, 6 Mar 2015 10:25:21 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

The ban took place in 1937. The Senate had 69 Dems, just 25 Republicans.
The House, 322 Dems, 123 Republicans. FDR ruled the WH. But it figures
you libs would try to blame Republicans. It's what you libs do. Nice
job further discrediting your own cause.

I'm sorry, I tend to extrapolate. Here in Brasil the left wing
always vote for the right to keep and bear arms, and the right to do
what you want with your body (as long as it does not harm others), so
they are pro decriminalizing pot and abortions, but radically against
alcohol while driving, use of crack-cocaine or mandatory
sterilization.
So America is the opposite..... how strange. It's usually the
right wing that come up with laws like the Patriot act, the root of
all evil. No left wing government here has ever threatened a basic
civil right.
[]'s


You don't have to worry about the Patriot act. Being Brazil, and
not a prime target, you can just ignore muslim terrorism and let
the major countries of the world deal with the problem. Convenient
for you. For the record, the Patriot Act passed with overwhelming
bipartisan support. Only one Senator, Dem Russ Feingold voted
against it. In the House it also had huge Democrat support, even
Pelosi voted for it. So there goes that angle.....again.

Far more people here die from gunshot wounds and stabbings in
a week than have died from "terrorist attacks" in America in the last
10 years.

Convenient use of timeframe, to exclude 911. Nuff said.




But that does not terrify anyone. Does that mean we are not
cowards, or does it mean that the last dictatorship knocked some sense
into us and we would rather be free ? Or both ?
PS No "Muslim terrorism" here, but tens of thousands of
Muslims. We avoid killing and burning their children, so we're
friends.
TIA

Sure you are. You really, really, have to have your head in the sand
to think that ultimately these radical muslims won't spread their world
vision of how you must live, convert to their religion, or die to you too.
Brazil just not on the top of their list yet.
Do you really think they are beheading Egyptian Christians, gunning other
muslims down and burying them in mass graves, raping little girls,
selling women as slaves, destroying
archealogical sites dating back thousands of years, because of anything
the USA or our allies have done? Good grief. It;s like excusing
what Hitler and similar have done because of alleged actions to stop them.
Genocidal maniacs are genocidal maniacs.

On Saturday, March 7, 2015 at 12:16:24 PM UTC-5, Shadow wrote:
On Sat, 7 Mar 2015 06:27:05 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

You don't have to worry about the Patriot act. Being Brazil, and
not a prime target, you can just ignore muslim terrorism and let
the major countries of the world deal with the problem. Convenient
for you. For the record, the Patriot Act passed with overwhelming
bipartisan support.

http://www.majorgeeks.com/news/file/...eeinternet.jpg

We don't get those shops here. I envy you.
[]'s

It's not even a good cartoon. No one is regulating internet speech here.
Do you get your news from cartoons?

On Sat, 7 Mar 2015 15:12:25 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, March 7, 2015 at 12:16:24 PM UTC-5, Shadow wrote:
On Sat, 7 Mar 2015 06:27:05 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

You don't have to worry about the Patriot act. Being Brazil, and
not a prime target, you can just ignore muslim terrorism and let
the major countries of the world deal with the problem. Convenient
for you. For the record, the Patriot Act passed with overwhelming
bipartisan support.

http://www.majorgeeks.com/news/file/...eeinternet.jpg

We don't get those shops here. I envy you.
[]'s

It's not even a good cartoon. No one is regulating internet speech here.
Do you get your news from cartoons?

I'm sorry, I thought you lived in America. You know - no fly
lists for comments in emails, 30% of people scared of discussing
politics over the phone, that sort of stuff.
But since you are Russian, the cartoon will make no sense at
all. I only understood it because our dictators said that they took
our freedom because of "terrorists". The dictatorship lasted 38 years,
and we recently discovered there were no terrorists, it was all a
ploy.
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012

On Saturday, March 7, 2015 at 7:15:04 PM UTC-5, Shadow wrote:
On Sat, 7 Mar 2015 15:12:25 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, March 7, 2015 at 12:16:24 PM UTC-5, Shadow wrote:
On Sat, 7 Mar 2015 06:27:05 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

You don't have to worry about the Patriot act. Being Brazil, and
not a prime target, you can just ignore muslim terrorism and let
the major countries of the world deal with the problem. Convenient
for you. For the record, the Patriot Act passed with overwhelming
bipartisan support.

http://www.majorgeeks.com/news/file/...eeinternet.jpg

We don't get those shops here. I envy you.
[]'s

It's not even a good cartoon. No one is regulating internet speech here..
Do you get your news from cartoons?

I'm sorry, I thought you lived in America. You know - no fly
lists for comments in emails,

Yeah, you could wind up on the no fly list if you're chatting
it up with emails to terrorists. We do have to take precautions
against the Jihadi John types you know. If you want to consort
with radical imams, terrorists, those who fund and support terrorists,
terrorist sympathizers, then I guess you'll just have to drive.



30% of people scared of discussing
politics over the phone, that sort of stuff.

I don't know where that alleged statistic came from.



But since you are Russian, the cartoon will make no sense at
all. I only understood it because our dictators said that they took
our freedom because of "terrorists". The dictatorship lasted 38 years,
and we recently discovered there were no terrorists, it was all a
ploy.


And here I thought we were talking about legalizing drugs....
Gee, maybe instead of worrying about what's allegedly going on in
the USA, where you don't live, you should take a look at what's
going on in your own country:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/09/world/...ine-world-cup/

Brazil wrestles with crack epidemic as it gears up for World Cup


http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...capital-brazil

Cracolndia: the crack capital of Brazil where addicts are forced to seek help


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz3TkpHP5t4
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

" Inside Brazil's hellish shantytown streets: Crack cocaine skid row where users steal, prostitute themselves, and pick through the trash to get their next fix
Brazil today is the world's largest consumer of both cocaine and its crack derivative, according to the Federal University of Sao Paolo"



Sounds like your kinder, gentler approach to legalizing drugs ain't working
so well down there. Yet, here you are, lecturing us about the USA that
you know nothing about. Good grief.

On 3/7/2015 5:05 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Saturday, March 7, 2015 at 11:43:25 AM UTC-5, Shadow wrote:

But that does not terrify anyone. Does that mean we are not
cowards, or does it mean that the last dictatorship knocked some sense
into us and we would rather be free ? Or both ?
PS No "Muslim terrorism" here, but tens of thousands of
Muslims. We avoid killing and burning their children, so we're
friends.
TIA

Sure you are. You really, really, have to have your head in the sand
to think that ultimately these radical muslims won't spread their world
vision of how you must live, convert to their religion, or die to you too.
Brazil just not on the top of their list yet.
Do you really think they are beheading Egyptian Christians, gunning other
muslims down and burying them in mass graves, raping little girls,
selling women as slaves, destroying
archealogical sites dating back thousands of years, because of anything
the USA or our allies have done? Good grief. It;s like excusing
what Hitler and similar have done because of alleged actions to stop them.
Genocidal maniacs are genocidal maniacs.


There was an article, a couple months ago, about how
Muslims operate. At different percentage of the
population, the progress is predictable. Brazil still
has a low enough percentage. As more immigrants and
kids change that number, the Muslim behavior changes.

Then, they are "offended" and then they demand special
consideration, and then they riot.
-
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

On Sat, 7 Mar 2015 17:45:02 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, March 7, 2015 at 7:15:04 PM UTC-5, Shadow wrote:
On Sat, 7 Mar 2015 15:12:25 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, March 7, 2015 at 12:16:24 PM UTC-5, Shadow wrote:
On Sat, 7 Mar 2015 06:27:05 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

You don't have to worry about the Patriot act. Being Brazil, and
not a prime target, you can just ignore muslim terrorism and let
the major countries of the world deal with the problem. Convenient
for you. For the record, the Patriot Act passed with overwhelming
bipartisan support.

http://www.majorgeeks.com/news/file/...eeinternet.jpg

We don't get those shops here. I envy you.
[]'s

It's not even a good cartoon. No one is regulating internet speech here.
Do you get your news from cartoons?

I'm sorry, I thought you lived in America. You know - no fly
lists for comments in emails,

Yeah, you could wind up on the no fly list if you're chatting
it up with emails to terrorists.

Gotta laugh. If you are chatting with "terrorists", they take
you away in the middle of the night. The no-fly list is mainly for
journalists, people working with encryption, and peaceful anti
"Treason-Act" activists. And those that oppose illegal acts by the
government, and actually have the courage to discuss it over the phone
or by email.

We do have to take precautions
against the Jihadi John types you know.

He was a British mercenary working with the CIA. Is ALL your
news censored now ?

If you want to consort
with radical imams, terrorists, those who fund and support terrorists,
terrorist sympathizers, then I guess you'll just have to drive.



30% of people scared of discussing
politics over the phone, that sort of stuff.

I don't know where that alleged statistic came from.

"Wired" or "The Register". Google it. The words were
"uncomfortable" of discussing politics. No one in a free country
should be uncomfortable discussing ANYTHING legal, because of fear
they might be overheard by "Big Brother".



But since you are Russian, the cartoon will make no sense at
all. I only understood it because our dictators said that they took
our freedom because of "terrorists". The dictatorship lasted 38 years,
and we recently discovered there were no terrorists, it was all a
ploy.


And here I thought we were talking about legalizing drugs....
Gee, maybe instead of worrying about what's allegedly going on in
the USA, where you don't live, you should take a look at what's
going on in your own country:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/09/world/...ine-world-cup/

Brazil wrestles with crack epidemic as it gears up for World Cup

Terrible. The federal police just caught a gang which shipped
a total of 15000 kilos of cocaine into Europe. The DEA appeared, all
charges were dropped, everyone was released and the helicopter and the
drugs were returned. Thanks DEA. There's even a video on youtube of
the apprehension of a lot of 500Kg, if you want it, I can post it here
if some secret court has not issued a take-down notice.


http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...capital-brazil

Cracolndia: the crack capital of Brazil where addicts are forced to seek help


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz3TkpHP5t4
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

" Inside Brazil's hellish shantytown streets: Crack cocaine skid row where users steal, prostitute themselves, and pick through the trash to get their next fix
Brazil today is the world's largest consumer of both cocaine and its crack derivative, according to the Federal University of Sao Paolo"

I said a few messages back, crack is not cannabis. It's more
like alcohol, people that use it can get very violent, and those that
abuse it invariably wreck their families. Rather like anti-cannabis
laws, they can be extraordinarily destructive.



Sounds like your kinder, gentler approach to legalizing drugs ain't working
so well down there. Yet, here you are, lecturing us about the USA that
you know nothing about. Good grief.


http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03...Lei/L11343.htm

The law signed by Lula in 2006 makes possession of small
quantities of drugs by consumers a minor crime, but it fails in that
it does not distinguish light drugs from heavy drugs(like crack and
alcohol). Penalty is a fine and up to 10 months community service.
The previous law had a mandatory minimum 2 year jail sentence
for the possession of even half a gram of marijuana and was passed
under supervision of the Americans during our military dictatorship.
It's a pity Lula was not advised better when he bundled all
drugs under the same law. It's like making a .22 rifle and a nuclear
weapon equally illegal.
BTW the country that legalized cannabis was Uruguay, not
Brazil. There is no "gentle","kind"approach here. You remain in jail
until a judge decides if you are trafficking, or are just a consumer.
Trafficking can get you 15 years in a Brazilian jail. If the DEA does
not let you out.
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012

On Sunday, March 8, 2015 at 11:03:40 AM UTC-4, Shadow wrote:
On Sat, 7 Mar 2015 17:45:02 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, March 7, 2015 at 7:15:04 PM UTC-5, Shadow wrote:
On Sat, 7 Mar 2015 15:12:25 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, March 7, 2015 at 12:16:24 PM UTC-5, Shadow wrote:
On Sat, 7 Mar 2015 06:27:05 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

You don't have to worry about the Patriot act. Being Brazil, and
not a prime target, you can just ignore muslim terrorism and let
the major countries of the world deal with the problem. Convenient
for you. For the record, the Patriot Act passed with overwhelming
bipartisan support.

http://www.majorgeeks.com/news/file/...eeinternet.jpg

We don't get those shops here. I envy you.
[]'s

It's not even a good cartoon. No one is regulating internet speech here.
Do you get your news from cartoons?

I'm sorry, I thought you lived in America. You know - no fly
lists for comments in emails,

Yeah, you could wind up on the no fly list if you're chatting
it up with emails to terrorists.

Gotta laugh. If you are chatting with "terrorists", they take
you away in the middle of the night.

Baloney. Did they take the Tsaernaev brothers away in the middle of
the night when the Russians told the US they were terrorists up to no good?
The FBI knew about them, interviewed them and didn't do anything more.
It's typical of how these cases are handled. Now if you're making
actual terrorists threats, indicating in emails that you're on your
way to join ISIS, sending money to terrorists, talking about plans
to acquire weapons to conduct attacks, then they do arrest you. And
even then, I can't recall seeing one "taken away in the middle of the
night". The arrests are normally made like any other arrest.



The no-fly list is mainly for
journalists, people working with encryption, and peaceful anti
"Treason-Act" activists. And those that oppose illegal acts by the
government, and actually have the courage to discuss it over the phone
or by email.


More lies. Of course to you ISIS and Al Qaeda are probably journalists
and peaceful activists.



We do have to take precautions
against the Jihadi John types you know.

He was a British mercenary working with the CIA. Is ALL your
news censored now ?


Sure he was. Jihadi John, aka Emwazi, was a mercenary working for the
CIA. According to you 911 was also done by the US govt, we attacked
ourselves. Time to take your tin foil hat in for a tuneup.




If you want to consort
with radical imams, terrorists, those who fund and support terrorists,
terrorist sympathizers, then I guess you'll just have to drive.



30% of people scared of discussing
politics over the phone, that sort of stuff.

I don't know where that alleged statistic came from.

"Wired" or "The Register". Google it.

It's not up to me to find the references to back up your
loon claims.




The words were
"uncomfortable" of discussing politics. No one in a free country
should be uncomfortable discussing ANYTHING legal, because of fear
they might be overheard by "Big Brother".

I'm not afraid. Oren, Stormin, Robert, Bob, and a long list of
others here regularly discuss politics. Countless people publish
letters to the editor, go on TV, with all kinds of controversial
positions. They aren't afraid either. You don't even live here,
so WTF do you know? Good grief.



You can say what you want, but I've given you several major news
organizations that show Brazil has a serious drug problem. And
that's despite decriminalization of drugs. Now the streets
are full of crack heads. So, given that and you're obvious disconnect
from reality, sorry, but you're discredited at this point. Just the
911 denying is enough to permanently discredit you and expose you as
a total loon.


http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/09/world/...ine-world-cup/

Brazil wrestles with crack epidemic as it gears up for World Cup


http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...capital-brazil

Cracolndia: the crack capital of Brazil where addicts are forced to seek help


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz3TkpHP5t4
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

" Inside Brazil's hellish shantytown streets: Crack cocaine skid row where users steal, prostitute themselves, and pick through the trash to get their next fix
Brazil today is the world's largest consumer of both cocaine and its crack derivative, according to the Federal University of Sao Paolo"

On Sunday, March 8, 2015 at 12:04:35 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sat, 7 Mar 2015 14:05:52 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

Far more people here die from gunshot wounds and stabbings in
a week than have died from "terrorist attacks" in America in the last
10 years.

Convenient use of timeframe, to exclude 911. Nuff said.

Since that number is 1000 - 1200 a week (murders), the 3000 who died
in 911 does not bend the curve much. It you toss in suicide and
accidents it isn't even close.

Bend what curve? The claim was made that "far more people die
from gunshot wounds and stabbings in a week that have died from terrorist
attacks in the last 10 years". If you include 911, you have 3000
killed on 911 alone. We don't have 3000 murders a week in the USA.
The timeframe of excluding 911 was deliberately chosen.

And the murder rate isn't anywhere near even your 1000 a week. Total is
16,000 a year, about 11,000 from guns, that's ~300 a week.
I'd also submit that the
reason we haven't had another 911 is because unlike Shadow, the USA
is taking terrorism seriously and has intercepted many threats
before they could come to fruition. We also got lucky with two
terrorists that would have brought down to airplanes, had the bombs
not failed. What's the point? We should
just accept more terror attacks because there are 300 murders a week?
I'd also point out that a majority of those murders were people
that were involved in gangs, selling drugs, other criminal activity,
ie a lot were not someone just working in an office on 911, like those
3000.

On 3/8/2015 11:04 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 7 Mar 2015 14:05:52 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

Far more people here die from gunshot wounds and stabbings in
a week than have died from "terrorist attacks" in America in the last
10 years.

Convenient use of timeframe, to exclude 911. Nuff said.

Since that number is 1000 - 1200 a week (murders), the 3000 who died
in 911 does not bend the curve much. It you toss in suicide and
accidents it isn't even close.


Hey, gfretwell, how about some citations to go along with your "statistics?"

1000-1200 Murders per week? LOL!


How about ~ 328 per week, using firearms, in the heyday of "gun crimes"
1993? Or ~209 per week in 2008 (Gun ownership in this country is on the
rise - as is the population - yet deaths by firearms are dropping)

http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/Pages/welcome.aspx



Or maybe we could look at a "fair, impartial assessment" (LMFAO) from
"The Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence" claims 597 gun related DEATHS
per week with 62% of those being suicides (which are going to happen
with or without guns) and a mere 213 being due to homicide (both
intentional and accidental)

http://smartgunlaws.org/category/gun...ce-statistics/

We could go on and on but the fact remains Guns ARE a problem but not so
much a problem as folks like you who shoot from the hip with NOTHING to
back you up would have us believe. Further, it's damn near impossible
to calculate just how many crimes, including homicide, murders,
woundings, etc. are prevent by the fact the criminal KNOWS the odds are
decent he'll run into an armed citizen.

We can only look at the often dramatic drop in interpersonal violence
when states permit concealed carry. More guns and less crime.
Coincidence? Perhaps.

Riddle me this: which cities/states have the strictest firearms laws
and the highest murder rates and/or incidents of crime with a gun?

Gee... Whodathunkit.

On 3/8/2015 12:40 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 8 Mar 2015 09:31:42 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

00.

On Sun, 8 Mar 2015 09:03:11 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

You can say what you want, but I've given you several major news
organizations that show Brazil has a serious drug problem.

That's to be expected in a country where drug laws are so
harsh that people are willing to pay police, justice, whatever it
takes not to be put in jail. Harsh drug laws breed corruption.

And that's despite decriminalization of drugs.

I said it before, I'll say it again. I live in BRAZIL. There
is a 15 year jail penalty for trafficking drugs, of any kind, yep,
even cannabis. We are not Uruguay, were cannabis is legal.
And when they catch the traffickers in the act, the DEA
convinces the judge to release everyone and drop all charges. No, I
can't explain why the DEA supports Colombian cocaine going to Europe.

This is the official police record of what I described
earlier.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MMjzvUNWyY

Logs showed it was the 30th run, 500kg of cocaine, total
15.000 kilos. That is a LOT of cocaine.
DEA arrived the next day, charges dropped and all the suspects
released. 9 months later, no one in jail, helicopter was released and
drugs were "destroyed" in a private facility owned by a friend of one
of the heads of the gang (Aecio Neves). That's why we have such a big
problem. Organized crime thrives on laws that make bribes the only
alternative. Everyone is in their pocket. Even the most "honest" crook
would rather pay than rot in a Brazilian jail.
[]'s


--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012

On Sun, 8 Mar 2015 09:03:11 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

Baloney. Did they take the Tsaernaev brothers away in the middle of
the night when the Russians told the US they were terrorists up to no good?
The FBI knew about them, interviewed them and didn't do anything more.

Of course not. You still don't get it, do you ?
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012