Hot Button Topics (religion, politics, sports)

[Chocofreak13]

@alfonso: the way you described some of those holidays made me laugh heartily. christmas used to be like that around here. now i let my mum sleep untill she's ready to get up, which could be anywhere from 10-2pm. xD
@dustii: your aunt and uncle are probably nice people. what i was saying was about the religion as a whole and what i've heard/experienced. the jehova's witness people used to come regularly to my house and would sit for coffee with my mum. they never converted us, but they gave me the creeps, especially with how much EMPHASIS they put on the religion in their lives. as i was not raised that way, putting that level of devotion to something so untangible weirded me out. after we heard what the religion was like from my friend and his girlfriend at the time (the jehova's witness girl i mentioned), we ended up tossing them out of our lives in disgust.

i'm aware what agnostic is, just for the record. i was agnostic for awhile. :3

@gun control: i support the method of gun control i described because, as i said, it's ludicrious to outlaw it. we get rid of guns, we have a second prohibition era on our hands. they're too ingrained with society to be taken away now. it'd be like outlawing cars or penicillin.
and even if we do, it's not going to stop the killing. those that want to intimidate or kill will just find new methods, or turn to old ones, such as swords or poison. which would be a great boost to the revival of medieval cultures. :\
i support the psych evals because, while it might further the stigma attached to those with mental illness, it is a vital part of the process to ensure that no one who can't handle the responsibility of owning a gun gets their hands on one. (and that's someone who HAS a mental illness saying that.) that's not to say they couldn't do it illegally, but if we had stricter laws concerning the illegal sale of guns (10+ years jail time, maybe?) and (as i said before) a national standard, the possibility of buying one illegally would drop.
as for gun shows, you can buy guns there with little to no background checks whatsoever. i'm not saying get rid of them entirely, i'm saying restrict the sale of guns at gun shows to DEALERS ONLY. dealers who undergo even stricter checks in order to keep their license, and have to go to these tradeshows/gun shows with proof that they are indeed a legal dealer of arms.
i'm a supporter of conceal-carry permits. there have been times when i've felt less than safe walking around (and was walking around clutching my knife), and a gun would make me feel that much safer. most of the time it's hard to conceal a weapon on your person anyway, and pulling it out of a purse or bag lends that much more time in between, meaning there's more time for police to react (or for the perp to react, which is bad). i also don't like the idea of only letting military personel or police have certain weapons, because what happens if they commit a crime or go off the deep end? what if they abuse their power? i want the ability to protect myself, since while i trust the police 99% of the time, i trust myself 100% of the time. >>;

@drugs: i detest drugs in any form, but i support medical marijuana. there is a legitimate need for it in some cases, and that shouldn't be overshadowed by the recreational users that abuse it. mind you, i only support using it when ALL other options have been exahusted. but there are some extreme cases of cancer, MS, and other serious conditions where marijuana can have a theraputic effect. it can also be used to treat some mental disorders, but i support more traditional methods in this case, if possible.

as for other drugs, most had an intended medical purpose at one point, but have been rendered obsolete and instead been recycled into recreational drugs. these i DON'T support the useage of, but wouldn't care too much if they became legalized. however, any sort of medical application is out of the question; you wouldn't let your barber use leeches for regular bleedings, right?

[Nichi]

On drug use, I don't have a problem with people who do it so long as they don't force it onto others and they only do it when in the company of people who don't mind. I don't do any drugs myself, aside from over-the-counter medicine when I need it (Most commonly, its allergy medicine), but I don't have a problem with people who do use it.

As for medical marijuana, I find it fascinating; taking something that normally is looked down upon and putting it to use in a way to help people in need. It's like how the pharmacy in the hospital I used to work at actually kept beer from what I heard; since some doctors would actually prescribe it to their patients

[Chocofreak13]

beer used to be used for some medicinal cases in the old days, i'm sure. so i think that's just a case of antique treatments still being used.

a close friend was looking to open up a pot dispensery in mass, since the license is coming up. he's actually working on ways to get the THC into other items, such as food and soda, meaning that there wouldn't even be a need to smoke anymore. it marajuana really marajuana when it's in the form of a cherry or chocolate soda?

[NejinOniwa]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hash_brownies
Hmmmmmm
I would say very much yes, they still are...

[Simonorged]

Anything that gets you out of your usual state of mind is bad in my opinion.
Anything that gets you chemically addicted is bad in my opinion. Even coffee.

It's sad how weed is better for you than cigarettes.
But apparently weed is more fun. .__.

I will not touch any substance legal or not.

I say coffee because people have with-drawls.
Symptoms: Splitting headache, Grumpy, and a crash after.

Gun Control:
No one should have concealed carry. Period. People who wish to have a gun should require special permits and will only be allowed for use in recreation, occupation, and home protection (meaning it doesn't leave the home). The whole idea of having a concealed weapon for protection backfires a lot of the time. Guns of a certain length or shorter should be banned, and automatic and heavy duty weapons should be banned. Those exempt from such a ban should be Military, Police, etc... Our use of guns has gone far beyond that of constitutional right in recent years. It needs to be stopped.

I still think if people had the weapon they needed to defend themselves, there would be less rapes, muggings, and other such crimes.

They wouldn't be so inclined to do something if the victim to be could kill the attacker.
But then we would have the wild west deal where people would test to see who could shoot first...

They're not going to attack someone who can defend themselves since its somewhat a dominance thing.

[NejinOniwa]

The whole thing with "gun control"...

It's not the guns you need to find, it's the dangerous people. (Quoth my mom whenever we pass an airport security check)

You can see that in the way the canadians have more guns per capita in some places than nearby americans, but the canadians have waaaaaaaay lower crime/murder rates despite that.

It is, I'm afraid, a cultural thing. It's less a need for gun control, and more a need for mind control until you've got the bad strains out of the populace's heads, really...



On drugs, I've just never seen the gain. At all. It damages your brain, which I'm fiercely possessive of, and I'm trippy enough without drugs. 90% of all booze tastes like shit, and I'd puke before I could draw a single breath on a cigarette. My taste/smell senses are rather overpowered...

Come to think of it, so are my other senses as well, but that's a discussion for another time. inb4ubermench

[Bella]

Anything that gets you out of your usual state of mind is bad in my opinion.
Anything that gets you chemically addicted is bad in my opinion. Even coffee.

Not to sound snippy, but I honestly wonder - do you also believe this applies to people on anti-psychotic medications? Anti-depressants? Other mind-altering (but legal and potentially-helpful) drugs? In fact, almost every medication on the market has the potential to cause mind-altering effects (even ones that are very innocuous and common - for instance, some people have bad emotional reactions to hormonal birth control or become very tired and dazed-feeling on antihistamines), should people avoid those drugs too?

As for chemical addictions, if you're anti-caffeine, are you also against sugar? Trans-fats? MSG? Other substances that are in everyday (typically, processed) food that have been proven to be unhealthy and addictive to one degree or another? Do you read labels and avoid all foods with caffeine, sugar, MSG and trans-fats in them?

The whole thing with "gun control"...

It's not the guns you need to find, it's the dangerous people. (Quoth my mom whenever we pass an airport security check)

You can see that in the way the canadians have more guns per capita in some places than nearby americans, but the canadians have waaaaaaaay lower crime/murder rates despite that.

It is, I'm afraid, a cultural thing. It's less a need for gun control, and more a need for mind control until you've got the bad strains out of the populace's heads, really...

Yes. This.

On drugs, I've just never seen the gain. At all. It damages your brain, which I'm fiercely possessive of, and I'm trippy enough without drugs. 90% of all booze tastes like shit, and I'd puke before I could draw a single breath on a cigarette. My taste/smell senses are rather overpowered...

YES. This again. I'm already super-paranoid and doubtful of existence as it is, I don't need drugs to make me even more freaked-out. :/

Although, as Kari and Pent mentioned, I do support the use of certain banned drugs in medicinal applications. Pot is considered something of a "soft" drugs and is quite famous for its various therapeutic properties, but even some harder ones may have a use in medicine. MDMA comes to mind - apparently it's proven successful in certain psychiatric therapies for anxiety and PTSD. (Actually, this whole article comes to mind.)

I guess what I'm saying is, while I, personally, don't support recreational drug use, I don't have my proverbial pantaloons in a bunch over people who DO partake in drugs responsibly. That goes for alcohol as well as the illegal narcotics. And I don't think there should be any shame surrounding people who use illegal drugs under the guidance of doctors as medicine, any more than you'd shame a person for taking any other sort of prescription medication. (Bearing in mind that some meds can be just as dangerous and addictive as their illegal counterparts - oxycodone and other powerful pain medications, for example...)

[Simonorged]

Not to sound snippy, but I honestly wonder - do you also believe this applies to people on anti-psychotic medications? Anti-depressants? Other mind-altering (but legal and potentially-helpful) drugs? In fact, almost every medication on the market has the potential to cause mind-altering effects (even ones that are very innocuous and common - for instance, some people have bad emotional reactions to hormonal birth control or become very tired and dazed-feeling on antihistamines), should people avoid those drugs too?

As for chemical addictions, if you're anti-caffeine, are you also against sugar? Trans-fats? MSG? Other substances that are in everyday (typically, processed) food that have been proven to be unhealthy and addictive to one degree or another? Do you read labels and avoid all foods with caffeine, sugar, MSG and trans-fats in them?

I personally don't like the Idea of medication at all. I worked my ass off to get off mine.
But to answer your question, no i don't think those should be avoided, such things as anti depressants can save lives.

And no I do not, I'm fat. The only reason I avoid coffee is because I've seen people who have had serious side affects from it.

And most of the other things affect people most when they're allergic to it.

[Bella]

Ah, okay, I was just curious. And trying to make a point, that there are a lot more potentially-dangerous and potentially-addictive substances in the food and medicine supply than most people believe.

(Edited and made into a new post, since I think my last one was unnecessarily-harsh and simplistic-sounding.)

Gun Control:
No one should have concealed carry. Period. People who wish to have a gun should require special permits and will only be allowed for use in recreation, occupation, and home protection (meaning it doesn't leave the home). The whole idea of having a concealed weapon for protection backfires a lot of the time. Guns of a certain length or shorter should be banned, and automatic and heavy duty weapons should be banned. Those exempt from such a ban should be Military, Police, etc... Our use of guns has gone far beyond that of constitutional right in recent years. It needs to be stopped.

Except some people actually have valid reasons for feeling unsafe and needing to have that level of protection on themselves. Sometimes it IS an occupational thing - for instance, diamond dealers and other people who carry valuable materials and/or large quantities of money on their person sometimes carry concealed weapons to defend themselves against muggers and thieves. Other people face real threats against their safety or lives, like stalkers, obsessed exes, friends or even strangers. Due to the nature of stalking, it's often difficult to get stalkers sent to jail (unless they make a physical attack or DOCUMENTED death-threats) and sometimes people have to take their protection into their own hands.

As well, some groups of people are simply more disposed to facing violence than others. My reason for wanting a concealed weapon isn't occupational or because I know of someone who wishes to do me harm, but simply because of my gender. Although American society has made great strides in getting women recognized as Real Human Beings, there are still plenty of places where it's not exactly safe to live an independent life as a female. If having a weapon will make a mugger or rapist take a second thought about attacking me, I'd like to have one on my person. And, well, if I were attacked, you better believe I'd want to fight back with the deadliest force available to me.

What I'm getting as is not every person who wants to carry a concealed weapon is some sort of paranoid, gun-thumping yahoo who wants to stick it to the man (*coughs and side-eyes the Tea Party Patriots*). Every person is different and faces different circumstances, and to ban them outright could put many peoples' safety and lives at risk. 

Also, you may notice that absolutely none of the recent mass-shootings have involved people with concealed carry permits. Murderous people don't follow the rule of law - hence their being murderous in the first place. I don't care if concealed carry was banned, if assault weapons were banned, if shotguns and rifles and semi-auto pistols and revolvers were banned, violent people WOULD get a hold of guns, and they would use them. Banning certain classes of guns, putting up more limits on gun purchasing and saying who can and can't carry them will not keep firearms out of the hands of violent people - it'll only put restrictions on non-criminals and people with valid reasons for needing guns.

[Chocofreak13]

guess you wouldn't be too fond of me then. xD (*is a caffiene addict*)

@gun control: nej clarified my thoughts rather nicely. as i said before, banning guns would bring about a second prohibition. the rumrunners and bootleggers did a steady business back in the 20's, who's to say that gun smugglers wouldn't have a similar success?

@drugs: while what bella posted sounds....interesting....i still don't like the idea of the majority of illegal substances being used as medicinal treatment. one has to weigh the side effects with the benefits in this case--considering the chance of DEATH highly outweighs the same chance in other (prescribed) drugs, i don't see the point in using the illegal ones. and with some other manufactured drugs (such as ecstasy or especially meth), the other side effects can be plenty devastating as well (ever heard of meth mouth?).

personally, i don't have a liking for drugs in any form. the smell of the raw cannibus plant is enough to make me puke, and i have stoner thoughts as it is. i don't need help with that. >>;;

[Simonorged]

guess you wouldn't be too fond of me then. xD (*is a caffiene addict*)

personally, i don't have a liking for drugs in any form. the smell of the raw cannibus plant is enough to make me puke, and i have stoner thoughts as it is. i don't need help with that. >>;;

No no no, you got it wrong, It's coffee I don't like not coffee adicts
&
Me too.

[Chocofreak13]

lol, fair enough. and i hate coffee with a passion. it's coca-cola that gives me my fix. ^^;

[DustiiWolf]

Except some people actually have valid reasons for feeling unsafe and needing to have that level of protection on themselves. Sometimes it IS an occupational thing - for instance, diamond dealers and other people who carry valuable materials and/or large quantities of money on their person sometimes carry concealed weapons to defend themselves against muggers and thieves.

Like I had stated, occupational uses are alright. That diamond dealer can have a gun.

Other people face real threats against their safety or lives, like stalkers, obsessed exes, friends or even strangers. Due to the nature of stalking, it's often difficult to get stalkers sent to jail (unless they make a physical attack or DOCUMENTED death-threats) and sometimes people have to take their protection into their own hands.

As well, some groups of people are simply more disposed to facing violence than others. My reason for wanting a concealed weapon isn't occupational or because I know of someone who wishes to do me harm, but simply because of my gender. Although American society has made great strides in getting women recognized as Real Human Beings, there are still plenty of places where it's not exactly safe to live an independent life as a female. If having a weapon will make a mugger or rapist take a second thought about attacking me, I'd like to have one on my person. And, well, if I were attacked, you better believe I'd want to fight back with the deadliest force available to me.

True. But there is alternatives to guns for protection. Stun guns for instance. There are handheld models that when discharged can electrocute someone from a short distance. Remember, the point of a gun (whether one likes it or not) is to kill. Whether it (the gun) is for protection or not depends on the user, but a gun, for the most part, is designed to kill. There are more humane ways of protection. Plus, a weapon is a weapon. There are even stun guns that look like actual guns. I doubt a rapist or a stalker is gonna stop to think "Hmmm is that a real gun or a stun gun and should I take the chance, and could I handle the electrocution if its a stun gun, as well as should I risk it if its real." (I may be wrong though.)

What I'm getting as is not every person who wants to carry a concealed weapon is some sort of paranoid, gun-thumping yahoo who wants to stick it to the man (*coughs and side-eyes the Tea Party Patriots*). Every person is different and faces different circumstances, and to ban them outright could put many peoples' safety and lives at risk. 

Never said they were. and I understand an OUTRIGHT ban could do such things. But I wasn't suggesting such (I should of explained more)

Also, you may notice that absolutely none of the recent mass-shootings have involved people with concealed carry permits. Murderous people don't follow the rule of law - hence their being murderous in the first place. I don't care if concealed carry was banned, if assault weapons were banned, if shotguns and rifles and semi-auto pistols and revolvers were banned, violent people WOULD get a hold of guns, and they would use them. Banning certain classes of guns, putting up more limits on gun purchasing and saying who can and can't carry them will not keep firearms out of the hands of violent people - it'll only put restrictions on non-criminals and people with valid reasons for needing guns.

I know that wasn't the case. And my point is, if certain guns were banned (with certain allowable exceptions), those guns would legally have to be taken from the market. They would be less easily accessed. A number of criminals would no longer have access to such weapons. Now yes, I know those hardened criminals will just get them on the black market, but I never said this plan would 100% solve things. There would have to be other things in place along with it.

Overall, this wouldn't be foolproof, but it could help. If there are those who are deemed necessary to own a gun for protection, they should have one. But every citizen getting a gun "to feel safe" I feel is a bit excessive. As well as owning guns for the sake of owning. From what I read, one of the more recent mass shootings, the guns belonged to the shooters mother, who was a collector.
Also, a citizen does not need a bazooka, nor an fully-automatic weapon. Some weapons we don't need.
We would also need government regulation on black market weapons for this to work. Otherwise, you are correct, the criminals will get them anyways.

Im not saying this is the only way to fix things. But it could help. (People wouldn't be removed of their right to carry weapons, but only those who need a gun (for protection/occupation, and exception for things such as hunting {occupation/recreation} and shooting ranges {recreation/learning}) would own one.

There needs to be some kind of regulation. not an overall ban, but stricter rules, and limit on what kind of weapons are sold.

Im also open to the whole psych eval. thing. That could help as well, making sure the mentally ill (and downright loony) people don't obtain deadly weapons.

Theres a lot of different ways we could fix this, each one having their ups and downs. Psych eval cant detect that a mother will lose her job and become desperate around Christmas. (Seriously. A woman in a minivan robbed a gas station at gun point here this past holiday season. Clerk said she seemed desperate. Police didn't find her last I knew.). Ban on certain weapons still leaves some weapons to be obtained. Theyre a no Win scenario. Guns are the Kobi Ashi Maru.

As far as drugs are concerned, some things that could be used for medical purposes im okay with. There are over the counter medications that can be more dangerous hen some of the "illegal" drugs out there. (Its all about how you use the drug/medication).
Recreational use, however, I see no sense in. If you want a rush, get a cup of coffee. Play a video game. Go outdoors and run. Don't waste away your health.

[stewartsage]

As far as the 'assault weapon' bans are concerned my worry is that we're going to see a lot of first generation assault rifles, battle rifles, etc. destroyed or confiscated from collectors, historians, reenactors, or museums under them.  Its time to face up to the fact that the M16 debuted almost fifty years ago, and early models are now historically significant relics.

[SleepyD]

Re: Gun control
assault "weapon"
see what they did there? With that term, they can really just make up arbitrary ban lists. Seriously, that ban list is so arbitrary it's enraging. Since when did a "pistol grip" make someone a significantly more efficient killer than a rifle without it? Face it, the killers will use whatever gun is readily available, and that's that. Doesn't matter if it looks like/is a military weapon or not.
Having said that, I am indeed against a weapons ban. If you want to ban guns over features that make sense, like full-auto, that's fine with me. Just don't start banning guns for weird cosmetic things like having a damn pistol grip.

I have similar sentiment to Nejin, in that it's a cultural problem (see Switzerland: http://world.time.com/2012/12/20/the-swiss-difference-a-gun-culture-that-works/), and you cannot simply impose laws in order to change that. I think a more stringent gun training course would help more in that direction. Of course, more training/education requires money, and that means, the cost (in time and money) to get a license will shoot up along with it.
But I think it should cost a lot to acquire a weapon such as that, and if you're licensed I should be able to trust you with it.

On that note, we have education/training covered, but as far as background checks are concerned, they are often unaware about any mental disorders a buyer may have. The stigma that still exists on things like depression prevents many people (themselves or others) from reporting it or seeking treatment for it.  So there needs to be a second cultural change there, in the perception of such disorders. If possible, a gun license should go with a mental check-up, I think.

I've presented my case before on facebook soon after the Connecticut shootings, and I don't think my ardent gun supporter and ardent gun control friends of mine liked it all too much. haha... such is compromise, I guess.

Re: Coffee
I learned to like coffee. Tea is my first love, however. And as far as caffeine in those are concerned, it has little effect on me. At best it makes me feel less sleepy in the morning, but I certainly won't start bouncing off the walls with a cup of strong coffee, no matter what time of day. I can even fall asleep quite soundly after having a strong cup of coffee at night. (Just give me an hour or so afterwards) It's possible I don't drink enough for it to even have an effect, or I've developed (or naturally have) a tolerance for it.

Energy drinks probably have so much caffeine and other stuff in em that they do hype me up, but at the same time, they just make me feel horrible. So I'm hyper, but useless. No go on productivity for that stuff.
A lot of people recommend that 5-hour energy drink stuff to me, but I could never get over the price. haha