Gluttons for Punishment

Re: listen, fuckhead ...

ChemicalBeauty said:
What does calling someone a "fuckhead" have to do with arming yourself? Cussing at someone is now justification for shooting them? What a silly little comment there, seussy.

as PitytheFool (great screename btw) correctly noted, i was joking - about the levels of hostility in your posts etc. etc.

Right. And I've already stated numerous times that drug-prohibition should be reversed. But until that day, you're not welcome to break the law using your gun to secure your profits. Sorry, brother.

so you agree: drug-related gun crime is a direct result of prohibition.

I used to think you simply varied in opinion from me, I now know that you actually have a screw loose. You're as bad as the Bush Admin's commercials stating "Did you smoke a joint today? If so, you just killed a police officer, or a judge etc..." What a joke!

jesus. people have tried & tried to explain this to you:

unless you are growing your own weed, please by all means post and assure us that you, the person you buy your weed from, the person they buy their weed from, the person they buy their weed from, the person who smuggles the weed into your country, the person who smuggles the weed out of the country of origin, the person who transports the weed and the person who grows the weed are not involved in any illegal activities .

for crying out loud; this is one of the main arguments we anti-prohibitionist people use all the time. prohibition removes any degree of ethical choice from the drug trade. you cannot be sure that, what is a harmless little baggie to you has not - at some stage - passed through the hands of someone involved in criminal activities which are not related to drug prohibition.

Go rob a bank with a shotgun and report back as to your findings. The problem here, has nothing to do with drugs, and everything to do with breaking civilized law with the threat of - and capability to - use deadly weapons.

are you aware of the gun laws in your country?

tell me - what is the maximum sentence you can receive for, say, owning an unlicensed firearm?

the 'threat of - and capability to - use deadly weapons' exists in NEARLY EVERY FUCKING STATE. as long as there are guns on the street, the 'threat' and 'capability' exist. don't they?

further - you KNOW as well as i do that this man, had he merely been carrying a weapon, would not be staring at 50 years inside. so don't dodge the issues.

Absolutely. And according to every state and federal law in this country, too. A 20yr old with an ounce of pot to smoke is in a lot different boat (legally) than a 20yr old with 5 pounds to sell.

i think there's something else you're not understanding here. perhaps i can help: what is a pound of pot made of?

answer: ounces.

So you'd have no problem with this sentence had the guy been selling a pound of crack instead of pot?

that's not what i or anyone else said. of course there's a distinction between cannabis and crack - i don't know whether you've ever seen anyone over-indulge in crack, but it's really not pretty. it can be a lethal drug. unlike, ahem, cannabis. most modern and progressive countries realise this - and legislate accordingly.

What are you saying? It's a lot more or less?

what i'm saying is,

is it not somewhat hypocritical to point the finger at someone who sells a few thousand dollars worth just because you buy a few dollars worth at a time? it's back to the pounds&ounces argument.

i don't want anyone walking down the street carrying a gun. that's why i don't live in Kinshasa, DRC, or Bumfuck, Colorado. but do you really think the 'threat' and 'capability' to use deadly weapons, combined with selling some pot - probably to the sorts of dealers who supply you and i, ffs - is worth half a century in prison?
 
^^Great post Seuss, you explicated exactly what I meant but in a more detailed fashion which may be more understandable for the less abstract thinkers among us.

However, I believe that this conversation is essentially finished, as the last good number of posts have had quite a cyclical nature.

It's kinda like watching a ping pong game. If people want to believe what they want to believe, they will.

It's one of the main reasons we have such an outdated drug policy here in the states (and many other places in the world.)
 
MattPD said:
However, if you ever buy from a person and you do not know the source (especially if we're talking something like MDMA, coke, heroin yada yada yada, even pot as we've learned) then you are likely buying a drug that was at one point around guns and people willing to use them.

I forgot about this thread and all you asshats! ;)

So MATTPD, if the Bush Administration went to war in Iraq with the simple goal to control the oil, and you drive a motorized vehicle, does that mean you're the impetus and are to blame for the deaths of all the lives that have been lost in Iraq? Or would it make more sense to blame the people who are ACTUALLY RESPONSBILE FOR MAKING THE DECISION TO USE VIOLENCE? (not the best example because it's international rules, but you must get the point in regard to non-direct responsibility, fuck, everyone could be the "impetus" for everything in one way or another) You guys amaze me (in a bad kind of way)!
 
Last edited:
Re: Re: listen, fuckhead ...

PityTheFool said:
The Bush Admin is correct that crime and guns and murder do get involved in the drug trade, and that these elements wouldn't exist if there was no drug demand (you). The Bush Admin's commercials are ridiculous not because of their initial claim, but because they fail to acknowledge that crime, guns, and murder wouldn't be associated with drugs if they legalized and regulated the prohibited drugs.

I told a slight lie above...

Yes, you did.
crime, guns, and murder wouldn't be associated with drugs if they legalized and regulated the prohibited drugs.

Right! 8) The same way guns and the loss of life aren't associated with oil, or politics 8( You are correct though, the amount of drug-realted violent deaths WOULD decrease substantially if drugs were legalized. So legalize them! But until then ...

The larger percentage of drug deals that occur in the United States ARE DONE without guns (according to my anecdotal evidence) so why OH WHY am I not the "impetus" for that larger percentage of weaponless transactions? If thousands of drug transactions occur every day and a couple dozen occur WITH guns- those, to me, are MUCH more serious offences than someone simply driving around doing whatever WITHOUT A GUN and the INSTANT ability to kill multiple people (including police officers) to protect HIS [a non-law abiding member of society's] MONEY.

Simply put: if this isn't blatantly clear, you're fucking r e t a r d e d :(

I don't have time to pick apart each and every one of your replies, especially seuss's whose post is absolutely RIDDLED with silly little misconceptions and non-sensical jibberish (rare-form)
 
Last edited:
^^^ I agree absolutely. Thats the breaks put simply, CB. I sincerely cannot understand how someone could argue with this!


skjalff
 
I used to live in Flint and let me tell you, if you're dealing drugs in a ghetto you're a target. The chance you're carrying lots of money and drugs is good enough for someone to take the chance of killing you. You have to carry a gun or you'll wind up dead one day.

ChemicalBeauty, if you're so concerned about bystanders being hit why don't you start ranting about all people who carry a concealed weapon? It doesn't matter if you're a regular joe or a drug dealer, if you have to pull your gun and shoot someone to save your life there's an equal chance of an innocent person being hurt.

I have a question. If you were walking down the street and someone came up to you with a knife and maybe a couple buddies sayin they're gonna cut you the fuck up would you shoot them? Or would you worry about the small chance that someone else might get hit by your bullet?

Sometimes you don't even have to shoot, just pulling it on someone can save your life.

The fact is if you're dealing drugs the chances of you commiting a violent crime is even less. If you're going to mug somebody it doesn't make much sense to sell them a bag and then pull your gun and take the rest of their money. Why not just leave the drugs at home and avoid a bigger charge? Under these circumstances the gun is more than likely for self defense.

I don't see how you can enjoy buying and using drugs but hate the people that risk their ass to get them to you.
 
^wonderful points... I wish you could admit that you're a hypocrite CB, it's obvious to quite a few people.
 
Deformed_Neuron said:
^Actually mate, you couldn't have said it any better. Well spoken...

Do these people have something personal against you? Or, is it just that they enjoy ganging-up on the one person?

Seriously... lol. If someone thinks differently to you, do you really think it's fair to gang-up and start calling each other names though? Why all the hostility?

We're only 'ganging up on him' because he is being deliberately obtuse and we all share an opinion different then him. When a group of people all share one idea, and another person shares another it is not surprising that the group with the shared idea tries to express that idea in a unified manner.

So, no, we're not ganging up, we're responding to CB's ideas.

And "Seriously...lol..." the only person who has any major issue with name calling and maturity of discussion in this thread is CB, so please, read the posts in a thread before making a cheerleading post with no point. K?

I'll post a response to you as well CB, but I've gotta run to work now, so it'll have to wait.
 
what does it fucking matter whether his a hypocrite or not??? No one is a fucking angel, but it doesnt mean you cant Know whats right even though you cant follow the suite at the moment.. we arent talking about individuals here are we? The points CB is making should be intuitively obvious to any thinking animal, and you guys use "youre a hypocrite" as an arguement to refute it? wow
 
skjalff said:
The points [being made] should be intuitively obvious to any thinking animal, and you guys use "youre a hypocrite" as an arguement to refute it? wow

rofl You're obviously unaware of the fact that here at bluelight, "You're a hypocrite" is actually the end-all be-all to an argument. Once somebody plays that card, the debate is over. That person automatically wins by default. Occasionally though, someone with absolutely no brain power and even less character will use it because they just can't formulate their own opinions (see: futuramike).

Deformed: I've actually done a wee-bit of name calling in this thread myself, but that was only in response to the first few posters calling me "pathetic" or saying something of the like. Cheers to you for posting what you believe in, as opposed to what's "cool".

Case in point: If you are a law breaker, you have one of two options: a) break the law without guns or b) break the law with guns. The choice is yours. If you get caught with a gun breaking the law, I have zero sympathy for you, and when someone posts an article detailing how your 50yrs in prison will be spent, it'll be my pleasure to tell everyone in that thread that guess what-- he made his own bed, and now he gets to lie in it. Contrary to what the ass-backward poster's in this thread will have you believe, it IS possible to be a NON-VIOLENT DRUG USER/DEALER. It happens everyday. The SMALL SMALL percentage of dealers that DO use guns, are risking their very life's for monetary gain, something that, to me, is unfathomable.
 
Last edited:
Defending yourself doesn't make you violent.

But it seems I shouldn't waste my words as you'd rather participate in senseless bickering than have an intelligent discussion.

You are a hypocrite. You buy drugs but want the people that sell them to you to either risk their life or spend the rest of it behind bars.

I smell bacon....
 
Distortion said:
hemicalBeauty, if you're so concerned about bystanders being hit why don't you start ranting about all people who carry a concealed weapon? It doesn't matter if you're a regular joe or a drug dealer, if you have to pull your gun and shoot someone to save your life there's an equal chance of an innocent person being hurt. I have a question. If you were walking down the street and someone came up to you with a knife and maybe a couple buddies sayin they're gonna cut you the fuck up would you shoot them? Or would you worry about the small chance that someone else might get hit by your bullet?

Are you serious with this argument, bro? Is the typical drug user really incapable of distinguishing between a person lawfully defending themselves from an [unlawful] attacker versus a person breaking the law (for monetary gain, mind you) with a gun who is willing to shoot and/or kill someone else in order to protect their financial interests?

Let me break it down for you real, real simply: One of these ficticious characters is willing to use violence/guns to DECREASE THE CHANCE OF A FINANCIAL LOSS, while the other is DEFENDING THEIR RIGHT TO MERELY EXIST.
 
^^^ Distortion. jesus f'in christ!! How old are you? You better smell bacon, now go tell your mummy theres a hipocrite on this board.
 
Distortion said:
Defending yourself doesn't make you violent.

Defending your illegal profits, does indeed. Sure, you might get robbed every once in awhile if you're an every-day drug dealer, but fuck, I'd think that'd be better than doing 50yrs in prison, or shooting somebody dead in an ally, no?

But it seems I shouldn't waste my words as you'd rather participate in senseless bickering than have an intelligent discussion.

Are you serious?

You buy drugs but want the people that sell them to you to either risk their life or spend the rest of it behind bars.

What are you talking about? I don't know ANYONE who carries or uses guns while dealing drugs and I don't know ANYONE who has ever been to jail for drug dealing and I also don't know ANYONE who has ever been robbed for drugs!
I smell bacon ...

Could that nasty stench in this thread be your girlfriend? :D
 
Last edited:
Distortion said:
You buy drugs but want the people that sell them to you to either risk their life or spend the rest of it behind bars.

And actually, I would argue that I'm actually defending these people's life's by asking them NOT to use guns.

I'm pretty sure the guy in this article would agree, to. Had he NOT had a weapon on him, he'd probably have a few year sentence at best.

Put that, in your crack pipe, and smoke it.
 
Re: Re: listen, fuckhead ...

PityTheFool said:
bullshit because cigarettes and alcohol are an example of desirable drugs that are quite successfully kept out of the hands of youths who shouldn't have them


^ That is hands down one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read. People under 18 don't smoke? :| People under 21 don't drink? 8o Do you even live in the US?

In my humble opinion, you're a fool, and I pity you. Coincidental, eh?

So you're a troll, right?

Yup. Been trollin for a few years now. I still don't know why I haven't been banned! I'm a non-violent troll, though, so maybe that's why they keep me around ;)
 
NSFW

FUTURAmike said:
^wonderful points... I wish you could admit that you're a hypocrite CB, it's obvious to quite a few people.

And I wish you could just admit that that chick in the work warning section DOESN'T have fake tits.

42935teeshirt.gif
She actually has perfectly incredible REAL breasts. But, asking you to appropriately comment on a woman's body is as asinine as asking you to formulate your own opinions, eh?

And speaking of cheerleaders, I saw you on at half-time yesterday! Lookin good. I challenge everyone to go through this thread and provide an example of mike actually making a statement or expressing an opinion of his own (in at least a paragraph) as opposed to just pointing at the poster above him and agreeing.
 
Last edited:
ChemicalBeauty said:
Are you serious with this argument, bro? Is the typical drug user really incapable of distinguishing between a person lawfully defending themselves from an [unlawful] attacker versus a person breaking the law (for monetary gain, mind you) with a gun who is willing to shoot and/or kill someone else in order to protect their financial interests?

Let me break it down for you real, real simply: One of these ficticious characters is willing to use violence/guns to DECREASE THE CHANCE OF A FINANCIAL LOSS, while the other is DEFENDING THEIR RIGHT TO MERELY EXIST.

How is a drug dealer less likely to be killed during a mugging than anyone else?

I can tell you've never lived in a big city. You probably live in some sheltered little suburb and you and your friends just go down to the tennis courts and sell people shitty weed between sets. Well, let me educate you. There are people out there who would love nothing more than to stab you just to watch you squirm around at their feet or to look hard in front of their friends, whether you give them your money or not. Mugging isn't a very profitable crime, and the money you stand to make isn't really worth the punishment you could face, most of them do it because they're violent and enjoy human suffering. I hope you never run into one of these people, but if you do be sure to sit down with them and have a friendly debate over gun control and ethics.

You make breaking the law sound like such a bad thing, even though the vast majority of bluelighters do it, including you (supposedly). Does breaking the law mean you deserve to be killed? Does it take away your right to defend yourself? What if you're buying drugs one day and I see it, come up and shoot you. You probably deserved it right? I mean, after all, you were doing something ILLEGAL. 8o

You're really fucking obsessed with the law, offic...uh I mean Chemical.

Not all of us can just ask mommy and daddy for money when we need it, selling drugs is tempting when you've spent your whole life poor. You crave nice shit when all your life people with more money that you have laughed at you for wearing holey old hand-me downs. You want to get that cadillac when the rich kids in school used to make fun of your dad's beat up old piece of shit car. And if mommy and daddy don't have enough money to send your ass to college, you get out there and make your own. People get tired of being poor. It's not fun. You're stereotyped and discriminated against and you can only take so much.
 
Distortion said:
How is a drug dealer less likely to be killed during a mugging than anyone else?

That's not the point. The point, is that while Mr. DrugDealer is actively engaging in felonious activity, he needs to leave his gun at home. I don't say this because I give a flying FUCK about the law, simply because it IS a law; I say this because I have a concern for the betterment of society, a respect for rules which I deem to be absolutely CRITICAL to the overall safety of the general population.

Have you ever heard of the term "anarchy"? Do you know - can you possibly imagine - what life would be like in this country if every single person that committed felonious acts of any kind, were suddenly given one firearm a piece? The fucking US military would have to occupy every street. There would be no rule. Chaos would ensue. Every homeless person with a criminal background, every thug on the street corner slanging his $20 rocks ARMED? Just imagine. Thus, specific laws were created which made committing felonious acts with firearms, even if not used during the commission of the crime, punishable by ridiculously long sentences.

If you committ a crime that OUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE'S DEEM IS OF THE WORST VARIETY, you will pay dearly.

I can tell you've never lived in a big city.

Where do you come up with this stuff?

I hope you never run into one of these people, but if you do be sure to sit down with them and have a friendly debate over gun control and ethics.

Thanks for the well wishes :D What this has to do with our debate is beyond me, however. As I said earlier, this isn't co-lum-bia. You want the world and everything in it, chico? Take your ass to cuba, or afghanistan. You can rock all the shit you want, with a big ass fucking troop of commando's. You guys can paint your faces, make boobie traps in the jungle and all type's of GI-Joe meets Scarface shit.


You make breaking the law sound like such a bad thing, even though the vast majority of bluelighters do it, including you (supposedly). Does breaking the law mean you deserve to be killed?
Absolutely not.

Does it take away your right to defend yourself?
That's the best argument I've heard in this whole thread. Simply put: "Rights" and "law breaking" are mutually exclusive. Should a bank robber NOT recieve a harsher penatly if he robs a bank with a shotgun than if he just went in there and demanded the money weaponless? I mean, bank robbers should be allowed to defend themselves too, right? :p When you CHOOSE to break a law, you should (imo) forfeit any and all "rights" (obvioulsy in direct proportion/correlation with the crime commited - just because a woman is in possession of an illegal substance obvioulsy doesn't mean she forfeits all of her rights, and it's ok to rape her etc.) ((it's ridiculous and it should say something about my audience that I just had to explain that to you))
I honestly believe drugs should be decriminalzed, but until then, the law IS the law. Write your congressman.

What if you're buying drugs one day and I see it, come up and shoot you. You probably deserved it right? I mean, after all, you were doing something ILLEGAL.

Again, huh? 8) Yeah, I think everyone doing anything illegal should be shot and killed on site. Do you just kind of pop in and out of reality?

You're really fucking obsessed with the law, offic...uh I mean Chemical.

You sound silly. But at least you have your wits about you enough to know that posting (and providing dialgoue for) Porky the Pig is straight out of Kindergarten Cop 2.

selling drugs is tempting when you've spent your whole life poor. You crave nice shit when all your life people with more money that you have laughed at you for wearing holey old hand-me downs. You want to get that cadillac when the rich kids in school used to make fun of your dad's beat up old piece of shit car.
Cry me a fucking river. You poor, poor thing. See, this is what your argument always leads back to: the love of money. Wanting to get more for less. If going through life in a cadillac instead of an escort is SO important that you'd risk spending 55yrs in prison for it, good riddance. People like you scare me. :(
 
Last edited:
You have a gift for completely missing the fucking point.

The fact is a dealing drugs in a bad neighborhood, regularly, without a gun is suicide.

Now if you don't believe people should die for breaking the law or dealing drugs, how can you support that law? Just because it's a "rule we need for society"? How will a drug dealer living another day threaten society? What if he pulls his gun and shoots some crazy fuck trying to kill him, will our society collapse?

Your definition of anarchy is extremely flawed.

But one thing interesting about it is that you're so concerned about everyone being given a gun. Well, anyone who really wants a gun can get one now. Crack dealers with guns!?!? Imagine that....

I think people should be charged with using a gun in a crime if they actually, y'know, USE THE GUN IN THE CRIME. Not simply having it with them. When you give some guy a speeding ticket and he has a gun on him they don't charge him with speeding with a gun (gasp) and put him away for the rest of his life. It's seperate charges. Now if you USE a gun in a drug deal then you should be charged. But you can't use a gun to sell drugs. You can use it to mug someone, you can use it shoot someone, you can use it to threaten someone, but those are all completely seperate crimes.

They just made this law so they coud force drug dealers to choose betwen risking their life or risking their freedom. It doesn't protect anyone.
 
Top