Wizard's Positions on Nevada 2016 Propositions

Quote: DJTeddyBear

In that case, why bother having background checks at all? After all, if that's your argument, shouldn't you also argue that crooks don't go to gun stores?

Because a gun show is a place for businessmen to sell on a transient basis. I said it above, if you force background checks there then you basically kill the gun show business. Which of course is the liberal idea in the first place. Gun shows are a small fraction of gun sales. They "gun violence problem" is really mostly suicides and the rest is mostly comes from a few small geographic areas. But somehow the "gun show loophole" is the end of the world?

Not going to be one who begs to have my freedom taken away for a false sense of security.

*Close gun show loophole -- not sure -- this day and age it is really easy to get the ability to check background set up. Last time I bought guns the background check was a snap. I agree with Face though - all this sounds good but the advocates just want to take incremental, meaningless steps [agree with AZ, gun shows are not a problem, oddly enough perhaps] The ultimate goal for gun control advocates will not change, nor will they show the slightest appreciation, if we throw them this bone. It's 'on to the next step' for them.

*Legalize recreation marijuana -- I would vote yes although against use and still think employers should be able to drug test for it and deny employment.

*End electricity monopoly -- vote yes, amazed that it is even possible. Good points by Pacomartin

*Eliminate sales tax on medical equipment -- not sure

*Keep fuel tax indexing -- vote yes if the rate is locked in - no increases in addition to index. But I will also say for anyone who likes fiscal responsibility - restraining spending is the only route. Often more taxes just mean more spending.

Quote: odiousgambit

*End electricity monopoly -- vote yes, amazed that it is even possible. Good points by Pacomartin

It is only possible for generation and not for distribution.

Since electricity varies so much in price from region to region or from year to year, the media is entirely focused on which people get screwed. If you get this option in your state, I would steer clear of no name companies with impossibly good, but variable rates. You may get more variation than you thought possible.

I do believe that people could probably do more good for the environment if they forego the electric car, simply buy a highly efficient economy gasoline vehicle, and opt to pay a few extra hundred dollars to see their home electricity generated by a renewable source. It also makes more sense than trying to build your own windmill or solar cell and paying for batteries.

But as that is no fun and you have nothing to show the neighbors, it will never be popular.

Quote: AZDuffman

Because a gun show is a place for businessmen to sell on a transient basis. I said it above, if you force background checks there then you basically kill the gun show business.

I would have (and probably did) agree with you before, but now that I'm in it, I don't see it. We gunners are a resilient bunch =)

As of now, the background check seems a no brainer to me, but I am missing two key pieces of info - 1) how many are being denied over BS, and 2) how much does it cost and where is that cost going? I know through my own research that ballistic fingerprinting, a process that was to all but ensure that any round could be traced back to its gun (and, hopefully, its owner) has cost $40,000,000 as of '14 or so and has resulted in not one single apprehension or prevention. Maybe it just makes antis feel good, and I'd not deny them the warm and fuzzies. But for $40 f#$%ing million? C'mon, guys.

As to shows themselves, I never really made it a point to go until, like so many others, I felt pressured by .gov's actions post Sandy Hook. And since I began going, I never been to one that wasn't packed out the door. I went to one just months after Hook and literal days after the horses#$% SAFEAct was passed, and there was certainly some bottlenecking as the system was bugged, unpolished, and had too many requests. BUT, it pretty much just made folks stand around and bitch with each other, which was a good enough time in itself. I mean, I saw no difference in a check there than I do in the actual gun store; it's the same merchants using their same computers. It just bogs everything up with the traffic of a show. More time to browse, IMO =)

But it just kills me because of the story I posted about my first BGC purchase. I made a strawman purchase the very first day of it, in plain sight, with not a single mote of attempt to hide it. I did every single bit of talking, handling, asking, and purchasing, and Pops stood right there, clipboard in hand, filling out paperwork. He vetted Pops, then handed ME my rifle. LOL. And I'm supposed to voluntarily hand over more rights for that? Please.

And to DJTB, I would hesitantly support BGC's just because it's one less avenue to obtain one. I happen to highly enjoy my gun merchants; all have great stories, are very personable, salt of the Earth people, and for THEIR protection, I'm for it. I don't want to see my buddies under the hot lights because some s#$%head used them for ill. But again, show me the cost and show me the results. This WILL prevent or at least delay / minimize harm. But the gain vs cost will not be something someone will view with pride, unless you're a "life at any cost" sort of fellow. I'm not one of those, so I view all of this stripping of freedom and burning of hundreds of millions of dollars over 10K LIVES A YEAR as one of the more ultimate wastes of time and money (no, I do not count suicides).

Quote: AZDuffman

The war on drugs is such a weird thing. You kind of have to start by asking if the drugs or the war on them cause more damage?

Maybe YOU have to ask. I can't for the life of me understand WHAT you need to ask, though.

Quote: AZD

On one hand we have spent hundreds of billions and trampled on civil rights. OTOH even with enforcement we have a snowstorm of heroin at the moment

I'm not sure if this was a typo, but you just made my point for me. "On one hand we have spent 'hundreds of billions', on the other hand it's done absolutely nothing." Yeah, that's my f#$%ing point.

It's not "hundreds of billions". We have gone over the trillion dollar mark. A TRILLION F#$%ING DOLLARS!!!1! FIFTY ONE BILLION DOLLARS EACH AND EVERY YEAR.

I get the anti drug sentiment. Even though you and I disagree about weed, disagree about legality of others, whatever, I do understand that drug use is a societal ill that needs combating. Even simple ol weed smokers who don't hurt nothing but a bag of Doritos, yes, they could probably do better and be better if not for the bag. BUT, I challenge anyone to make one valid point as to how this way is anything but a complete f#$%ing disaster.

Let's rewind to when I became a father. I was still smoking back then, new father, pretty good job. Weed does make me lazy, so I would have been better without it. I've seen me sober; sober Face gets shit done. But what was I then? New father. Husband. Manager of my joint. I produced, i collected wages. I spent wages at merchants, I helped fuel the economy. I was a shoulder for some to cry on, a rock for some to lean on, a soft surface for some to snuggle into. I was a teammate, a brother, a friend. Let's pretend one day I got pinched. Guess what? Now a job is out a manager. A shopkeep is out a customer. A wife is without a husband, a child without his father. How good do kids do without a solid male presence? A team without its defender, a mom without her son, on and on it goes. My life gets swallowed up by .gov. My wages go to their pot, my vehicle goes to their pot, and all my production, all my POTENTIAL, rots in a cell. Are you f#$%ing kidding me?

Addiction is a mental illness. You don't punish sickness. What would $50mmm per YEAR do for the medical field if it were invested? For education, if it where invested? What if that jail wasn't a jail but a treatment center? What if that prison wasn't a prison but a school, a hospital. What if 2 and a quarter million Americans, 1 in every 111, were PRODUCING and not leeching us dry at a rate of $40k a year in jail? Because that's what we have now. 2.23 million Americans, rotting in jail, because they got high.

It's a god damned tragedy, and no one ever talks about it.

Don't even get me started on its effect on our now paramilitary policing. A pox on the whole rotten mess.

Quote: Face

Maybe YOU have to ask. I can't for the life of me understand WHAT you need to ask, though.

I'm not sure if this was a typo, but you just made my point for me. "On one hand we have spent 'hundreds of billions', on the other hand it's done absolutely nothing." Yeah, that's my f#$%ing point.

It's not "hundreds of billions". We have gone over the trillion dollar mark. A TRILLION F#$%ING DOLLARS!!!1! FIFTY ONE BILLION DOLLARS EACH AND EVERY YEAR.

I get the anti drug sentiment. Even though you and I disagree about weed, disagree about legality of others, whatever, I do understand that drug use is a societal ill that needs combating. Even simple ol weed smokers who don't hurt nothing but a bag of Doritos, yes, they could probably do better and be better if not for the bag. BUT, I challenge anyone to make one valid point as to how this way is anything but a complete f#$%ing disaster.
It's a god damned tragedy, and no one ever talks about it.

The only way is by wondering "what if" and we did not care. First, there would be more addiction. It can be argued the "forbidden fruit" aspect would have not led to as much use. OTOH, was there more drinking during or after prohibition? Yes, the most of course was "before." But there clearly were way more Americans drinking after. Not a doubt in my mind we would have more use with legalization.

There are two ways it could have and still could go. One would be "legalization" so you could go to the store and get some coke with your pepsi. Or meth or heroin if those were your thing. We can assume that all facilities for production would be USDA-type certified and you got what you were paying for. Use would explode. Profits would no longer need to be laundered and corporate interests would soon rule, maybe not in pot which almost anyone can grow. But it takes skill and know-how to synthesize meth, coke, and heroin. Meth especially is easy to blow yourself up making and comes from stuff that will do nasty things.

Of course, we would still have to have a mini WoD here for people who want to undercut the market and make various kinds of dope in their basements. Same as we still have moonshiners and folks rolling their own tobacco. Maybe that could be tolerable.

Other way would be a DADT system. Go to THD, buy some lye, matches, and various other items, and go cook. Would violence go down? Maybe, maybe not. Lower profits would mean more struggle for market share among dealers. It would also mean less easy money. But it would again mean more users. Not the same kind of explosion as legalization. But loss of fear of arrest would at the least cause current users to use more.

So we are screwed either way. One thing for sure, doped-up societies more likely to fall. China and opium. If you call alcohol a drug look at how it ripped apart American Indians. Look at what heroin did to blacks in the late 1960s.

Quote:

Don't even get me started on its effect on our now paramilitary policing. A pox on the whole rotten mess.

Please don't get me started either!

Quote: AZDuffman

The war on drugs is such a weird thing. You kind of have to start by asking if the drugs or the war on them cause more damage?

Depends on the drug. Methamphetamine is really really bad for the human body. Pot? Not so much.

Weed shouldn't even be mentioned in the same breath as hard drugs. Classifying them together is a big mistake. Part of the "rigged system" actually .... but I digress.