Portugal has stopped banning any drugs and the usage has gone down 80%. If you are found to be addicted to drugs there. You are put in front of a panel of doctors, psychologists, counselors and given help with your addiction. It apparently works. Not everyone will stop using drugs but a hell of a lot of people do.

Most of the migrants coming to the USA from Central and South America are seeking asylum from violent drug gangs. The source of the gangs' power is cash from sales of illegal drugs in the USA. We have tried a "war on drugs" for 50 years, and it has not worked (just like the earlier prohibition of alcohol did not work). What WILL work is de-criminalization of the drugs. Make pharmaceutical-grade drugs free and available to anyone who wants them. Redirect the money we spend on incarceration and policing into education and treatment. This will break the backs of the drug cartels, because the only reason their products are worth a dime is that they are illegal; the drugs have no intrinsic value of their own. If you really want to stem the tide of illegal immigration, end Nixon's war on drugs.

For a fuller explanation of how this will work, see my post of January 26, 2024.

The solution is much easier than that: just legalise all trade and possession of drugs, and if you don't want people taking drugs, you need to shut their lives down if they're taking them by giving people drug tests when they do such things as go to spectate at sporting events or to concerts - test on entry and ban from subsequent events if they aren't clean. The ones whose lives have gone to pot already and who don't care about that kind of freedom are going to be taking drugs no matter what you do, and trying to make that harder simply hands power to criminals, while it also makes drugs more dangerous because they aren't pure. As it stands, all the current approach achieves is to reward crime and make life hell in Central America with vast numbers of people being killed in return for a failed attempt to save drug addicts from themselves in the US, and all that conflict drives migration.

I'm far more concerned with the flow of legal drugs and the deaths and mayhem that causes.

Banning or restricting a tool does no good. Give me examples of it working out well. You can't, they don't exist. It doesn't fucking work.

More doing what doesn't work isn't the solution. Try thinking outside the box.

I think the proposed solution has some merit, but gun control alone won't solve the problem entirely, but it would likely put a dent in it. I am all for gun control though. I don't think anyone outside of law enforcement needs assault type weapons or semi-automatic firing.

All guns are designed to kill. Period. Although a very few guns are designed for hunting, most guns are designed and engineered to kill people. It really makes me uncomfortable that the courts interpretation of the 2nd Amendment to the constitution is to allow (almost entirely) unfettered rights to weapons designed to kill other people.

I don't agree with the courts interpretations. At the time the second amendment was written, the U.S. had no standing army, and individual states had a lot more autonomy. However, the U.S. Civil War changed that. Before the Civil War, we had volunteer state militias to protect the country. Therefore guaranteeing the right to be able to defed the country in a "well regulated" militia, we essential at the time for nation defense. After the Civil War, the country shifted to have a national standing army, so state militias were no longer so essential, and people owning guns to be able to join those militias was no longer a necessity for nation defense. The state militia eventually became the State's National Guard, which is now under the U.S. Army and is a part of the U.S. standing army is often called up to fight in overseas conflicts, such as recent conflicts in the Middle East. Arms for "The Guard" are supplied by the U.S. Army. Individual ownership of a fun is no longer a necessity to serve.

So, the 2nd Amendment is an outdated anachronism which has been twisted by gun manufacturers to increase sales, and thanks to the court's legislating from the bench, now every person has the right to own a weapon designed to kill other people.

I would nto be so bothered by this if people who owned guns actually practiced proficiency, rather than just assuming owning a gun by itself would keep them safe.

When my father died I was shocked to find he owned half a dozen guns. Only one of which he ever used, and that was when he was a 22 rifle he had since he was a kid, and as a kid was the last time he used it. He never visited a firing range to practice since he left the marines when he was recalled to be a drill instructor for basic training for the Korean War. Since then he never fired a gun, but when he died he owned a half dozen of them. Which would have bee a bonanza for any crook who broke into the house to rob it.

The facts are that most gun owners don't keep guns secure. For instance, my dad kept all of his under the mattress. Guns kept in the home are more often used against loved family members than they are against "bad guys". Kids in homes that have guns almost always know where the guns are kept and how to access them. For instance, I knew growing up that my dad kept his rifle in an attic storage space, and a loaded hand gun in his sock drawer in the house when I was a kid. And, being a kid, I was curious and took them out a few times to look them over.

Weirdly, I never received any gun instruction from my dad who had two guns in my childhood home, but actually had some gun training because the leader who oversaw my age group at my parent's church (Mormon), was into hunting. So, I along with all the other boys my age went through the NRA gun safety courses, passed and got hunting licenses. Although it seemed I had natural talent, as I shot 14 out of 15 into a 1 inch circle at 100 years, I really didn't have much interest in guns, and I haven't shot a gun since age 14 or 15. I am now 61.

Anyway, if I were to own a gun, I'd think it imperative that I keep it stored securely, and that I practice with it to keep up proficiency in using it. I do not believe that owning a gun in itself keeps you safe. Not if you seldom, if ever practice with it. If you own a weapon of death it is a responsibility to be safe in every way with it.

Back when I took NRA courses in the 1970's, the emphasis of the organization was still about marksmanship (proficiency), responsibility and gun safety, not in collecting huge personal arsenals, as it seems to be today. I still think if a person owns a gun, they should firs be responsible about ownership, being sure to follow safety guidelines and storing guns safely (preferably in a locked gun safe), and they should practice with it to become and maintain proficiency, so if they ever actually need to use it for protection, they don't hurt themselves or loved ones, or other innocents in trying to defend themselves. They should also learn how to properly clean any firearms they own. I'd hate to think of my dad's handgun from the 1970's that he kept loaded in a sock drawer, which accumulated lint and dust being fired, and the idea of the magazine being loaded so long would likely means it could have easily jammed if the gun were ever actually used. Just because I have no interest in owning a gun doesn't mean I dont' remember what i learned from those NRA classes.

Anyway, I got off the subject. The 2nd amendment needs to be at the very least updated to reflect the current difference of the state of our national defense strategies (armed forces, we now have a standing army for defense) and in the interest of public safety.

The Cartels thrive because Americans buy their drugs, not because of guns. While a Cartel may kill a politician from time to time, it is money, that allows the cartels to thrive.

The amount of guns in this country is absurd;this is a result of politicians pandering to their big money overlords. What America needs are politicians who actively represent their constituents,not just those with money to buy their favors.

Jejune drivel.

Güeys could have sticks and stones and still supply the anthropic desire for altered consciousness to merkins.

A role of any leader is national security which means border control. The border is not being managed, plain and simple. The buck stops with the president.
Can't control your border, you are on the way to becoming a failed state.

PS I hope all remember O'Biden referring to these people as "illegals", then quickly correcting himself, referring to them as "undocumented". Who wants a bet "undocumented" are given the right to work and vote? Not like illegals.

We make the guns. The Mexican drug cartels use 'em. The cartels make the drugs. The Americans use 'em.
There is a history of gun running 'into our southern neighbors sovereignty. Addiction is our pay back.

Very altruistic and practical solutions for governments to implement yet they won't. It is profitable for them to keep things as they are as long as they are not the targets.
If government officials and their families were the ones at risk, you would see laws and enforcements of those laws governing gun control.