PDA

View Full Version : Potential alliance with NORML?


nicki
08-09-2008, 8:13 PM
NORML(National Organization for the Reform of Marijuania laws).

NORML is definitely on the left side of the political spectrum.

If we look at the Federal gun laws and the Federal Marijaunia laws they are based on what I feel are misapplicaton of "tax laws and the commerce clause".

Medical use of Marijuania has broad popular support based on the way people vote. While most Americans oppose "legalization" , they support medical use.

A large amount of Americans believe that the government is lying about the dangers of Marijuania as well as other "non pharmacy drugs" or "alternative treatments" for health problems.

47 percent of Americans will get cancer some time in their lifetime, and chemo's nasty side effects are enough to motivate many people to give marijuania a try.

Most of the people in NORML view government agencies with severe distrust.
Yes, they are on the left of the political spectrum, but they have also been the victims of political persecution by the federal courts and as such, it makes them less likely to trust the government.

The NORML people may be open to the concept of reducing the size of government so that they can reduce the damage a government can impose.

Health care is a big issue, and alternative health care and government suppression of it are big issues which it appears NORML is aligning with.

After Prop 215 was passed in 1996, the Fed and state should have set up pilot Med Marijuania programs and should have instituted honest studies on the medical value of marijuania, neither of which they did.

Many medical marijauna patients have had to defend their "crops" and they have done so with "guns":eek:

Any thoughts from you guys?

Nicki

rayra
08-09-2008, 9:00 PM
No.
There's enough doper libertarian-socialists infesting the RKBA sphere (and lying on their 4473s) already.

sorensen440
08-09-2008, 9:02 PM
Thats scary ground but Id say maybe to working on the same thing
Id really hate to see our two fights linked in the media

dustoff31
08-09-2008, 9:06 PM
No.
There's enough doper libertarian-socialists infesting the RKBA sphere (and lying on their 4473s) already.

Beat me to it.

nobs11
08-09-2008, 9:07 PM
No.
There's enough doper libertarian-socialists infesting the RKBA sphere (and lying on their 4473s) already.

The 4473 question relates to "unlawful use," not legal marijuana. Stop generalizing. A family member is living with the agony of cancer and medical marijuana has helped her a lot. Thanks for being tolerant and open minded. Then again, I feel that Paul is the right guy for America. I guess that makes me a "doper libertarian-socialist."

dustoff31
08-09-2008, 9:10 PM
The 4473 question relates to "unlawful use," not legal marijuana. Stop generalizing. A family member is living with the agony of cancer and medical marijuana has helped her a lot. Thanks for being tolerant and open minded. Then again, I feel that Paul is the right guy for America. I guess that makes me a "doper libertarian-socialist."


This has nothing to do with tolerance or openmindedness. Under federal law there is no such thing as legal marijuana. Medical or otherwise.

nobs11
08-09-2008, 9:11 PM
This has nothing to do with tolerance or openmindedness. Under federal law there is no such thing as legal marijuana. Medical or otherwise.

Great. Hope you or a loved one never has to live with the agony of cancer. Maybe that will change your mind.

sfwdiy
08-09-2008, 9:11 PM
I think the image that will be portrayed, that of people sitting around getting high on drugs with firearms present makes for a real easy target. Personally I think pot is a harmless waste of time but from a political and PR standpoint this one is DOA.

--Ben

glockman19
08-09-2008, 9:13 PM
NO

Mixing drugs and firearms is never a good Idea.

Knight
08-09-2008, 9:14 PM
NORML can get a little zealous. That said, i generally support legalization of marijuana, even though I don't smoke.

Is there really a strong enough link between the two groups though? I generally think of the issues of gun rights and drug rights as separate.

aplinker
08-09-2008, 9:14 PM
I think we've got another 20-30 yrs for the "older generation" to die off (the ones who were subjected to the "Evils of Marijuana" propaganda) before this could happen.

I've never smoked, but I definitely support legalization...

Remember, (and this is a generalization) most gunnies are neo-cons. Drugs are a blight on all that is right in the world.

I think mixing issues leads to problems with dividing the camps... besides, how many pro-weeders are gonna want to team up with gunnies?

Kestryll
08-09-2008, 9:20 PM
Great. Hope you or a loved one never has to live with the agony of cancer. Maybe that will change your mind.

I've had friends and those I've cared for have brain cancer, liver cancer, cancer in their spine, my mom has skin cancer on her scalp and numerous other variant.
No, it has NOT changed my mind.

See people have to live with cancer, chemo, radiation and pain?
Been there, seen the results, don't want the t-shirt.

I was in the life years ago, getting away from that crap was a damn good move.

Frankly I've seen many more lives ruined by drugs then by cancer.

dfletcher
08-09-2008, 9:21 PM
NORML can get a little zealous. That said, i generally support legalization of marijuana, even though I don't smoke.

Is there really a strong enough link between the two groups though? I generally think of the issues of gun rights and drug rights as separate.

There probably is not a strong enough link and the general public's negative perception of mixing drugs and guns would be quite a challenge to overcome. But philosophically, they're both along the lines of "I'm an adult, leave me alone".

tombinghamthegreat
08-09-2008, 9:25 PM
I think mixing issues leads to problems with dividing the camps... besides, how many pro-weeders are gonna want to team up with gunnies?

That reminds me of a debate i did some time ago by comparing a gun ban in the US to the war on drugs. But then again my target audiance was 18-24 so it was fine.


No.
There's enough doper libertarian-socialists infesting the RKBA sphere (and lying on their 4473s) already.

Libertarian and socialist are not the same thing.

nobs11
08-09-2008, 9:27 PM
Remember, (and this is a generalization) most gunnies are neo-cons. Drugs are a blight on all that is right in the world.

Yep. And drugs make you do evil nasty things. Just like guns make you do evil nasty things. I wonder how anyone can wonder how liberals buy the "guns are evil" propaganda when so many conservatives buy the "drugs are evil" propaganda. Both camps are equally blind and irrational. I guess if you've been brought up listening to the "drugs are bad" mantra it is easy to be brainwashed. Just like liberals and their opinions on guns. It is the person, not the substance or the tool. It is about control.

thedrickel
08-09-2008, 9:27 PM
It's amazing to me how you can own guns and be on prescription narcotics, stimulants, anti-depressants, mood stabilizers, uppers, downers, or in-betweeners and nobody bats an eye . . . but OH TEH NOES! You have a doctor's recommendation to smoke pot?!? I'm sorry, directly to jail, don't pass GO, no 200$. No guns for the rest of your life.

dustoff31
08-09-2008, 9:30 PM
Great. Hope you or a loved one never has to live with the agony of cancer. Maybe that will change your mind.

I'm sorry to hear that your family member is suffering from cancer. My father in law passed away a few months ago from liver cancer, and I was recently worked up by an oncologist for lymphoma. Thankfully, I was given a clean bill of health cancewise, last Thursday.

You know what all this means? It means that regardless of what anyone thinks, marijuana is still illegal under federal law.

If you want to work to get the law changed fine. Pretending it doesn't exist is not a viable option.

nobs11
08-09-2008, 9:30 PM
Frankly I've seen many more lives ruined by drugs then by cancer.

There is a huge difference between marijuana and so-called "hard" drugs. Frankly, most people I know are productive members of society and have used marijuana at some point. Correlation is not causality.

Hans Gruber
08-09-2008, 9:33 PM
I think we've got another 20-30 yrs for the "older generation" to die off (the ones who were subjected to the "Evils of Marijuana" propaganda) before this could happen.

I've never smoked, but I definitely support legalization...

Remember, (and this is a generalization) most gunnies are neo-cons. Drugs are a blight on all that is right in the world.

I think mixing issues leads to problems with dividing the camps... besides, how many pro-weeders are gonna want to team up with gunnies?

Yikes, I hope most gunnies aren't "neo-cons" as defined recently by Cheney/Rumsfeld/etc. I think most gun folk tack to the right to be sure, but "neo-con" takes things to a whole different dimension (not left or right but off the chart on a diagonal).

Personally, I support the idea that if there is a naturally occurring substance that people can use to relieve their hurt, I don't think that it's the governments business. Now linking the struggle for the RKBA... I don't see that happening. The core of each movement wouldn't be caught dead fraternizing with the enemy (you know, anyone to the left/right of their particular mindset).

~KJ

berto
08-09-2008, 9:34 PM
While the gun camp and the weed camp share the goal of broader freedom in the sense of being left alone by the govt, the camps are separated by fed law. One hobby is legal while the other is not. It creates a mixing of messages that doesn't serve our purposes and presents additional image problems we just don't need. The stereotypical gun toting yokel in a pickup truck is scary and mocked by the coastal elite but the stereotypical scraggly bearded dorito bag toting stoner is a joke to pretty much everybody. The 'think of the children' crowd has no use for guns or drugs and combining the two is a wet dream of an opportunity for them to inflict even more asinine regulations on all of us.

nobs11
08-09-2008, 9:42 PM
If you want to work to get the law changed fine. Pretending it doesn't exist is not a viable option.

Okay that's fair now that you put it this way. Sorry about your father in law.

Kestryll
08-09-2008, 9:49 PM
There is a huge difference between marijuana and so-called "hard" drugs. Frankly, most people I know are productive members of society and have used marijuana at some point. Correlation is not causality.

The lives I saw ruined WERE by weed, I wasn't joking when I said I was in the life years ago. I mean I knew and hung with the dealers and distributors. I saw customers slowly lose jobs and families because they were so in to their pot.
I was damn near one of them.
Thankfully this was over ten years ago and I am so far from that crap now, but I remember what I saw and experienced.

AEC1
08-09-2008, 9:49 PM
Wow, first of all I have seen many die of cancer it is a nasty sight. I have also seen what MJ can lead to, I do think it is a gateway drug, not so much chemicaly, but socially, gets start smokeing cigaretes, it is cool, exciting and rebelious, then to weed, same thing, I think it is the rush of breaking the law that they are searching for, after a while that rush is not enough and they move on to bigger things.

As far as the Dr recomendation, what a joke, there iare "dr's"
out there that will write a prescription to anyone with a headache and 100 bucks, hell it is advertised in the "alternative" newspapers all the time. I am sure it does a great job with cancer HIV and other illneses. Oxycoton does two, and people abuse that as well. The problem is not with the .5% that use it for legitimate uses, it is those who want to get high and "open their mind"

To align forces would be like getting Coors, Bud, and Jack daniels to loby sacramento for gun rights... BAD...

nobs11
08-09-2008, 10:02 PM
I think it is the rush of breaking the law that they are searching for, after a while that rush is not enough and they move on to bigger things.


I won't argue with you because it is futile, but I believe that you are wrong here. Tell me that you have always driven according to the posted speed limit on the freeway. I am going to guess that the answer is no. Is it because you like the "rush of breaking the law" or because you think that the law is senseless. See where I am going with this?

Disclaimer: I am not advocating that anyone break the law, but come on. "Weed is evil and a gateway drug" is a hype. Losers screw up their lives. It is because they are looking for something to make their worthless lives better. The weed doesn't make them do that. Just like alcoholics. Having that nightcap and is not going to turn you into a drunk loser. You are entitled to your opinion.

tombinghamthegreat
08-09-2008, 10:02 PM
You know what all this means? It means that regardless of what anyone thinks, marijuana is still illegal under federal law.

If you want to work to get the law changed fine. Pretending it doesn't exist is not a viable option.

14.6 million Americans with little fear break the federal law on marijuana so for some people, violating the law is a viable opition. If people want something they will get it regardless of what the federal government says, after all personal use of the marijuana is a misdemeanor at best. Following the law is a choice, not a requirement.;)

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0880105.html

rayra
08-09-2008, 10:04 PM
The 4473 question relates to "unlawful use," not legal marijuana. Stop generalizing. A family member is living with the agony of cancer and medical marijuana has helped her a lot. Thanks for being tolerant and open minded. Then again, I feel that Paul is the right guy for America. I guess that makes me a "doper libertarian-socialist."


You guess right. And I note your attempt to cloak yourself in your relative's pain. What a pathetic thing to do.

dustoff31
08-09-2008, 10:08 PM
14.6 million Americans with little fear break the federal law on marijuana so for some people, violating the law is a viable opition. If people want something they will get it regardless of what the federal government says, after all personal use of the marijuana is a misdemeanor at best. Following the law is a choice, not a requirement.;)


I was speaking for non criminals.

rayra
08-09-2008, 10:11 PM
Great. Hope you or a loved one never has to live with the agony of cancer. Maybe that will change your mind.

That's asinine. You ***-u-me that someone who disagrees with you hasn't had the 'benefit' of your experiences. And you do this in the face of someone who is almost certainly older than you and thus far more likely to have had the Big C impact their life and family in some manner.

'Medical marijuana' is a fraud. There are plenty of pharmaceutical painkillers and appetite stimulants that work. And there is even a marijuana 'pill' that produces the appetite stimulas withOUT throwing up the door for the fraud, abuse and illcit drug-dealing that is the ACTUAL expression of 'medical marijuana' in California today.

So again, No, NORML isn't. And I disagree wholeheartedly and with the evidence of science and reality with any and all attempts to normalize the likes of a doper-crank group like NORML.

bwiese
08-09-2008, 10:14 PM
The 4473 question relates to "unlawful use," not legal marijuana

There is no such thing as legal marijuana. Despite CA's Prop 215 it's still illegal federally, period.

Whether I think that's right or wrong is immaterial, and possession of drugs even in small amounts combined with possession of firearms can reallly create legal drama in your life.

Politically the last thing we need is for gunnies to be aligned with druggies, that's a sure loser.

nobs11
08-09-2008, 10:16 PM
You guess right. And I note your attempt to cloak yourself in your relative's pain. What a pathetic thing to do.

I did not resort to name calling. My mind on medical marijuana was made up after I saw said relative go thru her ordeal. I am not a weed user. I do not have a medical marijuana prescription and I do not smoke or do drugs.Thanks for labeling me as one though and for being extremely mature.

AEC1
08-09-2008, 10:17 PM
I won't argue with you because it is futile, but I believe that you are wrong here. Tell me that you have always driven according to the posted speed limit on the freeway. I am going to guess that the answer is no. Is it because you like the "rush of breaking the law" or because you think that the law is senseless. See where I am going with this?

Disclaimer: I am not advocating that anyone break the law, but come on. "Weed is evil and a gateway drug" is a hype. Losers screw up their lives. It is because they are looking for something to make their worthless lives better. The weed doesn't make them do that. Just like alcoholics. Having that nightcap and is not going to turn you into a drunk loser. You are entitled to your opinion.

While you are correct that have driven over the speed limit, it is not that I feel the posted speed limit is sensless, as a matter of fact I am in the military and have lived in Germany and driven the autobahn and I tell you speed limits a re a good thing. When I do choose to go over the limit it is becasue at the time I am willing to pay the price, the price of the reduced gas milage, the ticket, the lost time to take care of it and the increase in insurance if caught.

While there may be many very sucesful people that get high, I would be willing to bet that 90% of them are at or belloiw the poverty level adn regularly commit other crimes as well, I may be wrong but I doubt it.

The comparison to alcohol is not all that great, I have never known anyone smoke a bowl because it makes a meal taste beter, or just have a joint cause it is a noce vintage and they like the taste, if I recall back 15 years it tastes pretty bad, so the only reason for anyone to use it asside from the cancer paitent is to get high... so we can "open our mind, see sounds and hear colours.."...

I tell my sailors all the time, while drinking is legal if you are of age (that number depends on the country we are in ) be careful, 95% of the people I take to MAST (NJP) are the result of alcohol, even if it is legal it is not always a good thing...

nobs11
08-09-2008, 10:18 PM
That's asinine. You ***-u-me that someone who disagrees with you hasn't had the 'benefit' of your experiences. And you do this in the face of someone who is almost certainly older than you and thus far more likely to have had the Big C impact their life and family in some manner.

'Medical marijuana' is a fraud. There are plenty of pharmaceutical painkillers and appetite stimulants that work. And there is even a marijuana 'pill' that produces the appetite stimulas withOUT throwing up the door for the fraud, abuse and illcit drug-dealing that is the ACTUAL expression of 'medical marijuana' in California today.

Again, thanks for the name calling.


So again, No, NORML isn't. And I disagree wholeheartedly and with the evidence of science and reality with any and all attempts to normalize the likes of a doper-crank group like NORML.

Glad that you believe in science and for labeling everyone who is for medical marijuana usage as a "doper-crank." The brainwashing works.

rayra
08-09-2008, 10:18 PM
This has nothing to do with tolerance or openmindedness. Under federal law there is no such thing as legal marijuana. Medical or otherwise.

Beat ME to it.


http://www.atf.gov/forms/4473/index.htm

"12e. Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana, or any depressant, stimulant, or narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?"


And it's a felony to lie on that form. And as dustoff has pointed out, that worthless Rx for a medical merijuana club in CA is NOT a 'Get Out of Jail Free' card re the 4473.

rayra
08-09-2008, 10:24 PM
neo-cons

I've never found a word-label that more promptly and thoroughly describes the politics of the utterer, than that.

rayra
08-09-2008, 10:33 PM
That reminds me of a debate i did some time ago by comparing a gun ban in the US to the war on drugs. But then again my target audiance was 18-24 so it was fine.




Libertarian and socialist are not the same thing.


I am specific in the words and labels I choose to use. And in this case 'libertarian-socialist' is EXACTLY the concept I meant to convey, even if you are incapable of recognizing it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

I am specifically referring to the ~half of the Libertarian party today that is comprised of dopers, indoctrinated in anti-corporatism, anti-govt in every regard that conflicts with their selfish desires but simultaneously with their hand out for government cheese, indoctrinated to believe that the Bill of Rights are absolutes particularly when it enables their lowest behaviours and abuse of narcotics. The kids, the Anarchists, the 'Trenchcoat' mafioso who are Liberals in every way EXCEPT for their FPS-game induced fixation on firearms.
They are Libertarian-socialists and most of them are too ignorant of political history to even realize it.

And it is their affiliation with firearms that makes them outcasts amongst thier liberal peers and leads to laughably concepts like an alliance of convenience between dopers and law-abiding gun-owners.

SC_00_05
08-09-2008, 10:33 PM
I'm sorry to hear that your family member is suffering from cancer. My father in law passed away a few months ago from liver cancer, and I was recently worked up by an oncologist for lymphoma. Thankfully, I was given a clean bill of health cancewise, last Thursday.

You know what all this means? It means that regardless of what anyone thinks, marijuana is still illegal under federal law.

If you want to work to get the law changed fine. Pretending it doesn't exist is not a viable option.

Do you seriously obey all laws at all times without question simply because "it's the law"? I hope not, as thinking for yourself is a hell of a lot better than deferring all decisions to the government. By the way, if you ever speed, roll through stop signs, etc. you're breaking the law and are one of those evil "law breakers" you apparently despise.

SC_00_05
08-09-2008, 10:41 PM
Beat ME to it.


http://www.atf.gov/forms/4473/index.htm

"12e. Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana, or any depressant, stimulant, or narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?"


And it's a felony to lie on that form. And as dustoff has pointed out, that worthless Rx for a medical merijuana club in CA is NOT a 'Get Out of Jail Free' card re the 4473.

Would this also apply to people who unlawfully drank alcohol (depressant) while under 21 or unlawfully smoked cigarettes (stimulant) under 18? If so, there sure are a lot of felons with guns out there...

Before you state "that was in the past though!", I'm thinking that unless some guy is filling out the 4473 while smoking a joint, what he has done is also past behavior as I see no specifics on time use on the 4473.

pizzatorte
08-09-2008, 10:43 PM
their selfish desires but simultaneously with their hand out for government cheese, indoctrinated to believe that the Bill of Rights are absolutes particularly when it enables their lowest behaviours and abuse of narcotics.

This is a pretty amazing comment. It's extremely short-sighted to condone the outlawing of possessing things. The moment you condone the use of force by the government against individuals for the mere act of possessing any thing, you cede your own expectations of being left alone to own the things you want. I'm not sure how condemnation of the possession of one thing can coexist in the same head as an assertion that one should be free from interference in the possession of another thing.

bwiese
08-09-2008, 10:45 PM
Do you seriously obey all laws at all times without question simply because "it's the law"? I hope not, as thinking for yourself is a hell of a lot better than deferring all decisions to the government. By the way, if you ever speed, roll through stop signs, etc. you're breaking the law and are one of those evil "law breakers" you apparently despise.

Yes, but those are not disqualifying matters for firearms ownership.

The original topic was possible association between NORML types and gunnies.

Besides being political suicide just from the overall tenor, anytime gunnies associate (accidentally or otherwise) with illegal behavior (lying on 4473s, possession of illegal drugs while owning guns, etc.) it adds wholly unacceptable linkage to purity of gun rights - esp as some segments of the population already associate "guns = drugs" due to news coverage.

rayra
08-09-2008, 10:46 PM
Yikes, I hope most gunnies aren't "neo-cons" as defined recently by Cheney/Rumsfeld/etc. I think most gun folk tack to the right to be sure, but "neo-con" takes things to a whole different dimension (not left or right but off the chart on a diagonal).

Personally, I support the idea that if there is a naturally occurring substance that people can use to relieve their hurt, I don't think that it's the governments business. Now linking the struggle for the RKBA... I don't see that happening. The core of each movement wouldn't be caught dead fraternizing with the enemy (you know, anyone to the left/right of their particular mindset).

~KJ

Here's another one.

President Bush signed into law the Protection in the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act to keep Democrat Liberals from attempting to sue firearm manufacturers and dealers out of business.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act

He also signed into law Federal legislation designed to prevent a repeat the egregious anti-civil-liberties gun confiscations perpetrated by the Democrat Liberal local and State government officials of New Orleans - Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disaster_Recovery_Personal_Protection_Act_of_2006

He also appointed the two Supreme court justices that helped ensure that the Second Amendment was restored to something akin to it's common practice of the first ~160yrs of our nation. Before Democrat Liberals set out to re-write history and disarm America.

So when you recover from your silly "yikes" vapors and re-assemble your camoflage as a supporter of the RKBA, remember to GIVE THANKS for the PRO-RKBA actions taken by this "neo-con" President.

bwiese
08-09-2008, 10:47 PM
Would this also apply to people who unlawfully drank alcohol (depressant) while under 21 or unlawfully smoked cigarettes (stimulant) under 18? If so, there sure are a lot of felons with guns out there...

Those are not disqualifiers on the 4473.

Before you state "that was in the past though!", I'm thinking that unless some guy is filling out the 4473 while smoking a joint, what he has done is also past behavior as I see no specifics on time use on the 4473.

If you wanna fight the ATF on when "user" stops or starts, you're welcome to.

aileron
08-09-2008, 10:48 PM
This has nothing to do with tolerance or openmindedness. Under federal law there is no such thing as legal marijuana. Medical or otherwise.

So the law is always right is it?

rayra
08-09-2008, 10:56 PM
While the gun camp and the weed camp share the goal of broader freedom in the sense of being left alone by the govt, the camps are separated by fed law. One hobby is legal while the other is not. It creates a mixing of messages that doesn't serve our purposes and presents additional image problems we just don't need. The stereotypical gun toting yokel in a pickup truck is scary and mocked by the coastal elite but the stereotypical scraggly bearded dorito bag toting stoner is a joke to pretty much everybody. The 'think of the children' crowd has no use for guns or drugs and combining the two is a wet dream of an opportunity for them to inflict even more asinine regulations on all of us.

Gun ownership in support of the RKBA is NOT a "hobby". This is where the pro-dope argument comparing the two areas massively fails.

Smoking dope is NOT about civil rights or the protection of same - it is about SMOKING DOPE WITHOUT GOING TO JAIL. It is about nothing more than the selfish seeking of lawless anarchy using the Bill of Rights as a fig leaf.
RKBA, the 2nd Amendment, is about defending ALL our other enumerated rights against a repressive government. And no matter how much pot-smoking-induced paranoia about 'NeoCon Fascists', the reality is that it is Democrat Liberals who are the REAL illiberal force in America. It is THEY that create speech codes, that demand the firing of weathermen that don't support the Anthropogenic Global Warming fraud, that punitively downgrade students who will not parrot their classroom indoctrination, that run as a campaign platform the grossly abusive and fictitious 'windfall profits' wealth redistribution scheme against an industry whose profit margin is in single digits, FAR below the goverment's own profit margin on that industry's labors.

oaklander
08-09-2008, 11:01 PM
Seems like this topic comes up every 6 years or so:

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=119126

:D

rayra
08-09-2008, 11:03 PM
I did not resort to name calling. My mind on medical marijuana was made up after I saw said relative go thru her ordeal. I am not a weed user. I do not have a medical marijuana prescription and I do not smoke or do drugs.Thanks for labeling me as one though and for being extremely mature.
No, you did something much worse. You assumed that someone was ignorant on an issue on nothing more than your imagination regarding what their personal / familial experience with Cancer might be. THAT is intellectual fraud.

Sorta like the intellectual fraud of your calling yourself a name as a strawman representation of how I was responding to your specious argument. All I did was agree with what you called yourself. Yet you present ME as the name-caller and flounce around with yet another feeble strawman crutch of the failing argument - 'maturity'.

So grasp again. You need all the straw(men) you can get because so far your argument bricks are made of nothing but mud.

pizzatorte
08-09-2008, 11:05 PM
A little weed might take rayra's edge off.

bwiese
08-09-2008, 11:06 PM
That's where I part ways with rayra, who seems to be of a "controller" mindset.

I really don't care what someone does, a pot smoker ain't gonna mug me, and frankly the whole drug war is staffed by losers that are otherwise unemployable and who are essentially on gov't welfare. (Honestly, is there any other use for a bone-thumpin' DEA agent in a 21st century economy? That agency is a fleet of gurgling Iggys. In CA, when the BNE guys get too burnt out, they fall into the BoF to burn off their last years until PERS hits.)

But while the whole drug war has been a complete and utter failure leading to the enrichment of idiots (they learned from the Treasury, who made Al Capone rich) druggies themselves don't hurt anyone if their supply is not constrained.

Anyway, mixiing gun & drug politics is just a non-starter.

dustoff31
08-09-2008, 11:07 PM
Do you seriously obey all laws at all times without question simply because "it's the law"? I hope not, as thinking for yourself is a hell of a lot better than deferring all decisions to the government. By the way, if you ever speed, roll through stop signs, etc. you're breaking the law and are one of those evil "law breakers" you apparently despise.

As a matter of course, I do obey all the laws at all times, because it's the law. Do I sometimes inadvertently drive 2 or 3 MPH over the speed limit? Yes, occasionally I do. Do I intentionally drive 85 MPH when the speed limit is 70 MPH? No, I do not.

I respect the laws not necessarily because I agree with them, but because they are our laws. I spent a good part of my life in a culture where the concepts of honor, duty, and self discipline is highly regarded. You see we are duty bound to obey laws whether we agree with or not, and we dishonor ourselves when we do not obey them. One definition of self discipline is doing the right thing even when you know nobody is watching or you won't get caught.

And of course the last thing I needed when giving orders or instructions to men was to have provided a basis in my personal or professional life for them to be able to say "you can't even control yourself, how dare you try to tell me what to do."

Now a couple of questions for you. Why don't people in CA have MG's, AW's, hi cap mags, etc.? It's a silly law that forbids it. Why not think for yourself rather than let the government think for you?

rayra
08-09-2008, 11:14 PM
Again, thanks for the name calling.



Glad that you believe in science and for labeling everyone who is for medical marijuana usage as a "doper-crank." The brainwashing works.

Again for the name-calling? I called you no name. I labeled your argument as asinine. They are not the same thing by any means and I'm wondering just how it is that you fail to recognize the difference.

'Brainwashing', what brainwashing are you referring to? Strawman again. The fact that someone disagrees with you does not mean they are ignorant or brainwashed. With that feeble accusation you really do deserve to be called rude names but the COC forbids it. Instead I'll point out again that you know nothing about me except that I disagree with your position and have expressed contempt for something you are apparently engaged in and advocate - and that you have again played a strawman card pronouncing my opposition to be nothing but "brainwashing". And that you do so even while you protest about name-calling. Laughable.

It's an even-money bet that I'm twice your age. I've seen drug use up close and personal. Just as I've seen cancer up close and personal. And I've seen several attempted govermental infringements on my personal civil rights - not the fanciful claims of the doper crowd but real actual attempts to imprison ME on false charges. So don't prattle to me about my not having any insight or being "brainwashed" because I disagree strongly with the massive negative social impacts of drug abuse and the misuse of firearms by drug abusers.

/and I'm not even going to indulge that distractive hand-waving about legal drugs vs illegal drugs. Or any subsequent nonsense about the Founders' hemp habits, either.

oaklander
08-09-2008, 11:18 PM
Well said. The gun-rights movement has to remain focused on ONE ISSUE ONLY. There are many groups out there that feel strongly about 2A rights, but that doesn't mean that we need to get involved with them. It makes us look bad.

For example, these guys are extremely pro 2A:

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/

As are these guys:

http://www.kkk.com/



Yes, but those are not disqualifying matters for firearms ownership.

The original topic was possible association between NORML types and gunnies.

Besides being political suicide just from the overall tenor, anytime gunnies associate (accidentally or otherwise) with illegal behavior (lying on 4473s, possession of illegal drugs while owning guns, etc.) it adds wholly unacceptable linkage to purity of gun rights - esp as some segments of the population already associate "guns = drugs" due to news coverage.

rayra
08-09-2008, 11:18 PM
Would this also apply to people who unlawfully drank alcohol (depressant) while under 21 or unlawfully smoked cigarettes (stimulant) under 18? If so, there sure are a lot of felons with guns out there...

Before you state "that was in the past though!", I'm thinking that unless some guy is filling out the 4473 while smoking a joint, what he has done is also past behavior as I see no specifics on time use on the 4473.

You can create as many angels on the head of that pinhead argument as you wish. It is by no means the conclusive 'gotcha' that you imagine it to be. Nor will that argument hold up in Federal court when you are caught in possession of ilelgal drugs and firearms. So run along.

SC_00_05
08-09-2008, 11:28 PM
Yes, but those are not disqualifying matters for firearms ownership.

The original topic was possible association between NORML types and gunnies.

Besides being political suicide just from the overall tenor, anytime gunnies associate (accidentally or otherwise) with illegal behavior (lying on 4473s, possession of illegal drugs while owning guns, etc.) it adds wholly unacceptable linkage to purity of gun rights - esp as some segments of the population already associate "guns = drugs" due to news coverage.
I actually, in no way, would want some sort of partnership with NORML for the reasons you stated. I just hate to see the type of thinking that puts an all important emphasis on any law, no matter how ridiculous it is.

pizzatorte
08-09-2008, 11:28 PM
Well said. The gun-rights movement has to remain focused on ONE ISSUE ONLY.

If the gun-rights movement exists solely for the sake of gun rights, then it is a complete waste of time. I know that's not exactly what you mean. But freedom isn't an a la carte menu.

rayra
08-09-2008, 11:32 PM
This is a pretty amazing comment. It's extremely short-sighted to condone the outlawing of possessing things. The moment you condone the use of force by the government against individuals for the mere act of possessing any thing, you cede your own expectations of being left alone to own the things you want. I'm not sure how condemnation of the possession of one thing can coexist in the same head as an assertion that one should be free from interference in the possession of another thing.
Yours is also amazing in the scope of it's unreality and refusal to acknowledge the reality of the land and time we dwell in.
I pay Property taxes, whose refusal will result in the legal confiscation of my home if I fail to pay them.
I pay income taxes - and onerous one at that, which Democrat Liberals promise to increase to feed the HALF of this nation that pay none at all, to feed those involved in multi-generational welfare fraud.
I registered for Selective Service by my 18th Birthday.
and on and on and on.
I later volunteered for and served honorably in the Marine Corps.
I've exercised my rights and legal privileges to Open Carry in unincorporated territory and subsequently been detained, had my pistol confiscated and been falsely accused of carrying a concealed weapon (and subsequently beat the charge / won a Dismissal with prejudice).
and...

But I just re-read your tripe and see that you call enforcement of laws an unreasonable use of force by government - a purely Anarchist / Fantacist position and as such unreasoned and unreasonable.
And that you further make an absolutist line of argument about 'the outlawing of possessing things'.
There is absolutely no point in discussing the matter with you because our positions are so far apart as to be in different universes. And since I'm paying the bills in the universe I actually live in, HAVE to live in, it is utterly pointless to engage in the langorous and disjointed mental masturbation prevalent in yours.

oaklander
08-09-2008, 11:40 PM
All legitimate gun rights organizations are single-issue only, almost by definition.

Just because gun rights organizations focus on one aspect of freedom doesn't mean that individual members don't also hold in high regards other freedoms.

As a practical matter, can you imagine how fractionalized the gun rights movement would be if if was ALSO affiliated with the freedom of religion movement, the sexual liberation movement, the free speech movement, the racial equality movement, the free enterprise movement, the small goverment movement, the health case reform movement, etc.?

All of the people in those various groups think they are fighting for various types of freedom (freedom of association, privacy, religion, economic opportunity, etc.).

No, it can't be done.

If the gun-rights movement exists solely for the sake of gun rights, then it is a complete waste of time. I know that's not exactly what you mean. But freedom isn't an a la carte menu.

rayra
08-09-2008, 11:41 PM
Yes, but those are not disqualifying matters for firearms ownership.

The original topic was possible association between NORML types and gunnies.

Besides being political suicide just from the overall tenor, anytime gunnies associate (accidentally or otherwise) with illegal behavior (lying on 4473s, possession of illegal drugs while owning guns, etc.) it adds wholly unacceptable linkage to purity of gun rights - esp as some segments of the population already associate "guns = drugs" due to news coverage.

bwiese esq. is wisely adhering to the letter of the law in this issue which is as he points out about exactly that. I've allowed myself to be drawn farther afield by addressing the broader excusatory 'civil rights' argument put forward by dope advocates and how I see its / their interrelation to the broader RKBA battlefield and the other players and infringers upon it.
I'll endeavour to do less of that, because I've lived long enough, served enough, suffered enough, paid enough to and for those that trespass / transgress against me and my own value system that I find myself quite upset overall and am too ready to pound the crap out of foolish lotus-eaters. I might make one of them cry and mash a 'report' button and then whoo boy I might find myself in REAL trouble.
;)

Kestryll
08-09-2008, 11:43 PM
So, who all would like to take a few steps back from the computer and calm down a bit?

It's such a simple thing to do and yet it can make all the difference...

tombinghamthegreat
08-09-2008, 11:53 PM
Nor will that argument hold up in Federal court IF you are caught in possession of illegal drugs and firearms. So run along.

So its clear you are for the drug war so would you say that the war on drugs is "mission accomplished"(much like Bush did on Iraq) or would you say it has been a complete failure? Just asking because it appears the government/society is on the losing side of the war since there are about 20+ million Americans using illegal drugs. Not to mention another 7 million people who abuse prescription drugs.

http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSN2434397420080730

Another question i have, i have asked this on a similar issue, if you support the war on drugs for the illusion of a better society do you support a ban on
Tobacco(since according to the CDC 483,000 people a year die from from smoking), alcohol consumption (85,000 people per year)? Would you outlaw fatty food and force people to exerise since 400,000 people a year die from poor diet and physical inactivity? If not how can you justify a drug ban? Can you justify arresting millions of people per year, creating the biggest system in the world, intruding on individual rights and wasting about 50 billion a year which results in a blowback effect? If we are telling the government that the individual is not grown up enough to govern ourselves then how can we defend our rights including the right to bear arms?

http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/publications/aag/osh.htm

http://www.drugsense.org/wodclock.htm

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/6971.php

"The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite." - Thomas Jefferson

rayra
08-09-2008, 11:57 PM
That's where I part ways with rayra, who seems to be of a "controller" mindset..
"Slander, sir!"

/and spare me the pedant-lawyer's exposition on slander vs libel, I get it.

No, I am not 'controlling'. I'm dismissive. And didactic to the point of painful boredom when a person flings strawman after strawman at me in weak kitten-like ferocity trying to 'win' such a tired debate.

Nor will I type idly by while a poor debater invokes insubstantial 'Schroedinger's Cat' -like (il)logical constructs like equating enforcement of the laws with government fascism.

And I am harsh in my condemnation of tired 'civil rights' arguments about narcotic abuse. Actually were it within my power, I would distribute narcotics willy nilly by the truckload, with the hope that the addictive personality disorder would ultimately be weeded [pun intended] out of the gene pool. Then maybe the meth heads would quite trespassing and stealing on my property and I could take a hike in the Sequoia Forest without worrying about running into armed illegal alien pot-growers (who are only trying to make sure people get their 'medicine').

SC_00_05
08-10-2008, 12:04 AM
As a matter of course, I do obey all the laws at all times, because it's the law. Do I sometimes inadvertently drive 2 or 3 MPH over the speed limit? Yes, occasionally I do. Do I intentionally drive 85 MPH when the speed limit is 70 MPH? No, I do not.

I respect the laws not necessarily because I agree with them, but because they are our laws. I spent a good part of my life in a culture where the concepts of honor, duty, and self discipline is highly regarded. You see we are duty bound to obey laws whether we agree with or not, and we dishonor ourselves when we do not obey them. One definition of self discipline is doing the right thing even when you know nobody is watching or you won't get caught.

And of course the last thing I needed when giving orders or instructions to men was to have provided a basis in my personal or professional life for them to be able to say "you can't even control yourself, how dare you try to tell me what to do."

Now a couple of questions for you. Why don't people in CA have MG's, AW's, hi cap mags, etc.? It's a silly law that forbids it. Why not think for yourself rather than let the government think for you?

Inadvertantly or not then, you admit to breaking the law. Not that that's bad, it's just a helpful statement of fact that it's impossible to live life without breaking those precious laws of ours.

You talk about discipline and doing the "right thing" all the time when even nobody is looking. When did following the law at all times, which obviously isn't infallible, become the same as doing the "right thing"? Those two things are not the same, not even close.

People in CA do illegally have MGs, AWs and hi cap mags. Just because there's a silly law against it doesn't make them magically dissappear. Some people will have them and some won't, it all depends on each person's own version of cost vs benefit. The "cost" of breaking the law for you is very, very high for whatever reason so you choose not to.

A question for you, if it was law to turn in all your guns (not totally unbelievable given past statements by Feinstein, albeit before Heller), would you do it since the almighty law said so?

aplinker
08-10-2008, 12:11 AM
I've never found a word-label that more promptly and thoroughly describes the politics of the utterer, than that.

What are you implying?

oaklander
08-10-2008, 12:12 AM
Can I just say that the amount of name-calling and contention in this thread is exactly why the gun rights movement must never get involved with other freedom movements.

Imagine this dialog on a national scale!

:D

Hans Gruber
08-10-2008, 12:12 AM
Here's another one.

President Bush signed into law the Protection in the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act to keep Democrat Liberals from attempting to sue firearm manufacturers and dealers out of business.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act

He also signed into law Federal legislation designed to prevent a repeat the egregious anti-civil-liberties gun confiscations perpetrated by the Democrat Liberal local and State government officials of New Orleans - Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disaster_Recovery_Personal_Protection_Act_of_2006

He also appointed the two Supreme court justices that helped ensure that the Second Amendment was restored to something akin to it's common practice of the first ~160yrs of our nation. Before Democrat Liberals set out to re-write history and disarm America.

So when you recover from your silly "yikes" vapors and re-assemble your camoflage as a supporter of the RKBA, remember to GIVE THANKS for the PRO-RKBA actions taken by this "neo-con" President.

Relax, I'm on your side. I didn't even mention Bush.

~KJ

P.S. A good number of Dems voted for the Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act, including one senator whose name rhymes with Halack Bohama.

rayra
08-10-2008, 12:13 AM
As a matter of course, I do obey all the laws at all times, because it's the law. Do I sometimes inadvertently drive 2 or 3 MPH over the speed limit? Yes, occasionally I do. Do I intentionally drive 85 MPH when the speed limit is 70 MPH? No, I do not.

I respect the laws not necessarily because I agree with them, but because they are our laws. I spent a good part of my life in a culture where the concepts of honor, duty, and self discipline is highly regarded. You see we are duty bound to obey laws whether we agree with or not, and we dishonor ourselves when we do not obey them. One definition of self discipline is doing the right thing even when you know nobody is watching or you won't get caught.

And of course the last thing I needed when giving orders or instructions to men was to have provided a basis in my personal or professional life for them to be able to say "you can't even control yourself, how dare you try to tell me what to do."

Now a couple of questions for you. Why don't people in CA have MG's, AW's, hi cap mags, etc.? It's a silly law that forbids it. Why not think for yourself rather than let the government think for you?

Dustoff speaks directly to what I only alluded to earlier with my condemnatory remarks re Anarchists and Civil Rights Absolutists. They are alike via the prism ;) of this argument - We cannot have a succesful society founded on selfish anarchy, however it is cloaked or phrased. Ethics cannot be situational. Without laws we are a nation of beasts. These are concepts that bwiese might have spoken to in the past, the law being his bailiwick [court pun an afterthought].
The ingrained / indoctrinated viewpoints that Freedom is Absolute, that all government is evil, that individual freedom trumps individual resposibility are deliberately crafted to undermine our society.
The entire modus operandi of the ACLU and the liberal professoriat over the last 50yrs has been the deliberate Deconstruction of our society in the most insipid of manners - by twisting our 'Freedoms' into nothing more than avenues of selfish entitlement. By exhorting at every turn the individual over the society at one end, while at the other advancing collectivism / The State. The actual normal decent society in the middle finds itself torn asunder between these two beasts. As intended.
And this poorly and partially described conceptualization is why I view the 'Medical Marijuana' fraud as the 'camel's nose under the tent' method that it is. A gateway to a gateway drug, as it were. But more importantly, more symbolically, as a means of normalizing the use of narcotics. Hell, they even NAME their group NORML - how much more blatant can they be? They tell us to our faces what their intent is, but most of their advocates and those drawn into such a fruitless debate can't even see the (national) forest for the pot plants.

aplinker
08-10-2008, 12:14 AM
:rofl2:

these posts makes it very hard for me to take you seriously.


I defer back to my previous post and add... in your case... "I can't wait for 20 to 30 years until..."

"Slander, sir!"

/and spare me the pedant-lawyer's exposition on slander vs libel, I get it.

No, I am not 'controlling'. I'm dismissive. And didactic to the point of painful boredom when a person flings strawman after strawman at me in weak kitten-like ferocity trying to 'win' such a tired debate.

Nor will I type idly by while a poor debater invokes insubstantial 'Schroedinger's Cat' -like (il)logical constructs like equating enforcement of the laws with government fascism.

And I am harsh in my condemnation of tired 'civil rights' arguments about narcotic abuse. Actually were it within my power, I would distribute narcotics willy nilly by the truckload, with the hope that the addictive personality disorder would ultimately be weeded [pun intended] out of the gene pool. Then maybe the meth heads would quite trespassing and stealing on my property and I could take a hike in the Sequoia Forest without worrying about running into armed illegal alien pot-growers (who are only trying to make sure people get their 'medicine').

Dustoff speaks directly to what I only alluded to earlier with my condemnatory remarks re Anarchists and Civil Rights Absolutists. They are alike via the prism ;) of this argument - We cannot have a succesful society founded on selfish anarchy, however it is cloaked or phrased. Ethics cannot be situational. Without laws we are a nation of beasts. These are concepts that bwiese might have spoken to in the past, the law being his bailiwick [court pun an afterthought].
The ingrained / indoctrinated viewpoints that Freedom is Absolute, that all government is evil, that individual freedom trumps individual resposibility are deliberately crafted to undermine our society.
The entire modus operandi of the ACLU and the liberal professoriat over the last 50yrs has been the deliberate Deconstruction of our society in the most insipid of manners - by twisting our 'Freedoms' into nothing more than avenues of selfish entitlement. By exhorting at every turn the individual over the society at one end, while at the other advancing collectivism / The State. The actual normal decent society in the middle finds itself torn asunder between these two beasts. As intended.
And this poorly and partially described conceptualization is why I view the 'Medical Marijuana' fraud as the 'camel's nose under the tent' method that it is. A gateway to a gateway drug, as it were. But more importantly, more symbolically, as a means of normalizing the use of narcotics. Hell, they even NAME their group NORML - how much more blatant can they be? They tell us to our faces what their intent is, but most of their advocates and those drawn into such a fruitless debate can't even see the (national) forest for the pot plants.

rayra
08-10-2008, 12:15 AM
I'm done for the night, got a long day tomorrow, have fun debating how many pot seeds can dance on the head of a pin. Or how many of society's root concepts can be uprooted before it collapses.

SC_00_05
08-10-2008, 12:15 AM
You can create as many angels on the head of that pinhead argument as you wish. It is by no means the conclusive 'gotcha' that you imagine it to be. Nor will that argument hold up in Federal court when you are caught in possession of ilelgal drugs and firearms. So run along.
Yes, telling me to run along is a great way to win an argument. In fact, I get the distinct impression you like telling people what to do (which seems to contradict the fact you also seem to like being told what to do...). I'll just sit terrified, and wait for the minute I'm caught with those non-existant illegal drugs.

Feel free to keep believing everything that's fed to you by our all knowing protectors, the beautiful government. Luckily, for now, it's still legal to have differing viewpoints.

tombinghamthegreat
08-10-2008, 12:36 AM
Or how many of society's root concepts can be uprooted before it collapses.

Someone been drinking too much of Fox kool aid BS:rolleyes:....

rayra
08-10-2008, 12:41 AM
one last driveby / Parthian Shot, on the meta-subject of Deconstructionism and the sick effects wreaked upon our once strong and proud nation / society -


http://patdollard.com/2008/08/youth-football-team-defends-‘rifle-raffle’-fundraiser-plan/

read / watch that. Then think about the changes being deliberately wrought upon our society, trying to turn it into a lotus land of indolent self-absorbed self-medicating selfish idiots, who in turn tear away at the foundations of our nation - business, government, military service, responsible exercise of freedoms - because those things disturb their selfish comfort.

rayra
08-10-2008, 12:45 AM
Someone been drinking too much of Fox kool aid BS:rolleyes:....

formulaic condemnations of FoxNews as part of a deliberate strawman miscaricaturization of a debate opponent that's already exposed your particular ignorance (about libertarian-socialism) is right up there with that 'neo-con' idiocy.

Truly, that kind of (il)liberal foolishness belongs in the comments of the DU, or HuffPo or DailyCooz cesspits, NOT in the RKBA subforum of a gun forum.

aplinker
08-10-2008, 12:46 AM
omg :rofl:

Speaking of meaningless items that have nothing to do with the subject...



one last driveby / Parthian Shot, on the meta-subject of Deconstructionism and the sick effects wreaked upon our once strong and proud nation / society -


http://patdollard.com/2008/08/youth-football-team-defends-‘rifle-raffle’-fundraiser-plan/

read / watch that. Then think about the changes being deliberately wrought upon our society, trying to turn it into a lotus land of indolent self-absorbed self-medicating selfish idiots, who in turn tear away at the foundations of our nation - business, government, military service, responsible exercise of freedoms - because those things disturb their selfish comfort.

SC_00_05
08-10-2008, 12:47 AM
Dustoff speaks directly to what I only alluded to earlier with my condemnatory remarks re Anarchists and Civil Rights Absolutists. They are alike via the prism ;) of this argument - We cannot have a succesful society founded on selfish anarchy, however it is cloaked or phrased. Ethics cannot be situational. Without laws we are a nation of beasts. These are concepts that bwiese might have spoken to in the past, the law being his bailiwick [court pun an afterthought].
The ingrained / indoctrinated viewpoints that Freedom is Absolute, that all government is evil, that individual freedom trumps individual resposibility are deliberately crafted to undermine our society.
The entire modus operandi of the ACLU and the liberal professoriat over the last 50yrs has been the deliberate Deconstruction of our society in the most insipid of manners - by twisting our 'Freedoms' into nothing more than avenues of selfish entitlement. By exhorting at every turn the individual over the society at one end, while at the other advancing collectivism / The State. The actual normal decent society in the middle finds itself torn asunder between these two beasts. As intended.
And this poorly and partially described conceptualization is why I view the 'Medical Marijuana' fraud as the 'camel's nose under the tent' method that it is. A gateway to a gateway drug, as it were. But more importantly, more symbolically, as a means of normalizing the use of narcotics. Hell, they even NAME their group NORML - how much more blatant can they be? They tell us to our faces what their intent is, but most of their advocates and those drawn into such a fruitless debate can't even see the (national) forest for the pot plants.

You're right, how dare anybody exhort the "individual over society"!!! Don't they know that the common good is the most important thing in life, even more important than individual rights? What are rights or freedom after all? Who needs those things, they're nothing but "avenues of selfish entitlement"? What we need is a goverment masterplan to make us as efficient as possible in order to have a fully functioning society. Drugs, tobacco, fatty meat, sugar, personal possessions, all they do is to create inefficiency and chaos among the subjects of the state. This cannot be tolerated! Together we create the perfect society!

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::D

Alright, that may be taking it a bit far but anytime someone starts talking about limiting rights for the common good it can only end one way. There's a couple quotes I'd love to throw in there from Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson but I've said enough.

dustoff31
08-10-2008, 12:52 AM
Inadvertantly or not then, you admit to breaking the law. Not that that's bad, it's just a helpful statement of fact that it's impossible to live life without breaking those precious laws of ours.

So you equate an inadvertant traffic infraction with flaunting drug laws, or perhaps even murder?

You talk about discipline and doing the "right thing" all the time when even nobody is looking. When did following the law at all times, which obviously isn't infallible, become the same as doing the "right thing"? Those two things are not the same, not even close.

That would depend on who is making that determination, and under what circumstances wouldn't it? Is generally obeying the law the right thing, yes. Could there be extenuating circumstances that would cause one to choose not to, at that place, at that time. Yes. But "because I want to" is not an extenuating circumstance.

People in CA do illegally have MGs, AWs and hi cap mags. Just because there's a silly law against it doesn't make them magically dissappear. Some people will have them and some won't, it all depends on each person's own version of cost vs benefit.

Of course. And if they are caught they will be sent to prison and loose the right to own any gun forever.

A question for you, if it was law to turn in all your guns (not totally unbelievable given past statements by Feinstein, albeit before Heller), would you do it since the almighty law said so?

No, I would not. That would be a clear violation of an enumerated right. That act in itself would be illegal.

Look, I have said repeatedly that not every law is a good one. Some need to be changed. But they need to be changed, not ignored.

dustoff31
08-10-2008, 1:09 AM
Inadvertantly or not then, you admit to breaking the law. Not that that's bad, it's just a helpful statement of fact that it's impossible to live life without breaking those precious laws of ours.

So you equate an inadvertant traffic infraction with flaunting drug laws, or perhaps even murder?

You talk about discipline and doing the "right thing" all the time when even nobody is looking. When did following the law at all times, which obviously isn't infallible, become the same as doing the "right thing"? Those two things are not the same, not even close.

That would depend on who is making that determination, and under what circumstances wouldn't it? Is generally obeying the law the right thing, yes. Could there be extenuating circumstances that would cause one to choose not to, at that place, at that time. Yes. But "because I want to" is not an extenuating circumstance.

People in CA do illegally have MGs, AWs and hi cap mags. Just because there's a silly law against it doesn't make them magically dissappear. Some people will have them and some won't, it all depends on each person's own version of cost vs benefit.

Of course. And if they are caught they will be sent to prison and loose the right to own any gun forever.

A question for you, if it was law to turn in all your guns (not totally unbelievable given past statements by Feinstein, albeit before Heller), would you do it since the almighty law said so?

No, I would not. That would be a clear violation of an enumerated right. That act in itself would be illegal.

Look, I have said repeatedly that not every law is a good one. Some need to be changed. But they need to be changed, not ignored.

SC_00_05
08-10-2008, 1:19 AM
So you equate an inadvertant traffic infraction with flaunting drug laws, or perhaps even murder?
Do I equate speeding and owning a plant? No, speeding is a bigger crime. Murder???, What???:rolleyes: I'm pretty sure owning or smoking a plant in the privacy of your own house is different than taking somebody else's life.



That would depend on who is making that determination, and under what circumstances wouldn't it? Is generally obeying the law the right thing, yes. Could there be extenuating circumstances that would cause one to choose not to, at that place, at that time. Yes. But "because I want to" is not an extenuating circumstance.
Obeying the law is "generally" the right thing to do to help stay out of jail, has nothing to do with it being right. As long as not infringing on others' rights, "because I want to" is the American way.



Of course. And if they are caught they will be sent to prison and loose the right to own any gun forever.
True, and like I said, everyone has a different cost vs benefit structure. Well, true for MGs, not so much for AWs or hicaps when pled down.



No, I would not. That would be a clear violation of an enumerated right. That act in itself would be illegal.
So in other words, you'd obey certain laws and ignore others. Just like almost every other person in the world. As for a "clear violation", maybe it'd be clear to you, but not others. Some like Rayra believe only in the "responsible exercise of rights", responsible meaning whatever the then current administration deems it.

Look, I have said repeatedly that not every law is a good one. Some need to be changed. But they need to be changed, not ignored.
I agree with this, well maybe except the ignore part. I think I'd change that to "But they need to be changed, and ignored - at your own risk".

You sound like a rational person and the way that most of my family would respond. Like I mentioned with Rayra, thank goodness differing opinions are still legal.

SkyStorm82
08-10-2008, 6:16 AM
Not me. I'm not standing side by side with those clowns.

rssslvr
08-10-2008, 7:53 AM
With out doubt the active ingredients in cannabis have positive medical benefits and I am in full support of medical use but there are several problems with it,

One smoking is not a suitable form of administration,while studies have shown that smoking cannabis will not cause lung cancer it can cause emphysema in heavy long term somkers.Studies need to be done to isolate the ingredients with medical value and put them in a more suitable delivery system

The second problem is people abuse the medical cannabis law and find doctors that will write them a recomendation for just about any reason with little medical history to prove the condition exist.People like this ruin it for people that may truly benefit from cannabis treatment.it needs to be more controlled.

One thing I find ironic is the feds state Federal law trumps state law when it comes to medical marijuana but when it comes to our gun rights it's ok the state pass a law more restrictive than the federal gun laws.

And no I don't somke but if I was truly in need because of some god awful illness I would if it helped

AEC1
08-10-2008, 8:24 AM
First of all it took me 3 hours to read the thread this morning since I had to keep going to the dictionary, so slow down for me.

Second of all Rayra will you please run for a public office. You have my vote.

Third this thread is so far away from where it started. If I recall it was wheather or not the NORML and RKBA movement should get in bed together. Regardless of where you stand on the legalization of drugs, this is a bad idea, can you imagine the gun grabbers TV adds against us?

"3 guys sitting around a camp fire with a 3 foot bong and a guitar sining campfire songs, with evil black riffles, one in a "hightend state of awareness" hears a noise in the woods and they all decide that it is a bear or something and start emtying magazines into the woods... one of them gets shoot by accident..."

This would be bad for us. I am sure Rayra could use bigger more fancy words (which is why he has my vote) but you get my idea.

By the way, of all the available flavors of Koolaid, Fox's flavor is my favorite, though bitter in a few areas, so until Savage has his own TV news program I will continue to drink Fox koolaid through a filter thank you very much...

PatriotnMore
08-10-2008, 8:54 AM
Its just bad cross merchandising and marketing.

nicki
08-10-2008, 1:07 PM
For the record, I wa hoping that we would look at government abuse of the tax code and the commerce clause as vehicles to destroy our rights.

Federal gun laws and Federal Drug laws have their roots by expansive use of both the tax system and abuse of the commerce clause.

I have no problem with use of taxes for legitimate government functions, I do have an issue of the use of the tax code for transfer of wealth or social engineering. That is why taxes are so high.

The Commerce Clause was created to encourage and promote free trade between the states.

It's perversion to allow the Federal government to regulate everything under the guise that everything effects interstate commerce turns the concept of a limited government on its head.

Yes, I know most of you say Federal law supercedes everything. The reason Federal law supercedes everything is because they "expanded their authority" through abuse of the taxing clauses and redefining the "commerce clause".

We will not get back a "Free Country" and our "Gun Rights" until we fix these problems. We will not be able to fix these problems unless we can build broad support across the political spectrum to do so.

Even if we don't succeed in getting outright reforms, we can change public opinion through education, and slow down, maybe even reverse the current slide of things.

The reality is the housing crisis, our national debt, our trade debt, our energy crisis exist because of the government trying to impose national policies.

Often these so called policies in reality benefit a special interest group.

These directly effect most Americans.

This is information that is not taught in the schools, and when I explain this to most non political people, the common reaction is that this is bull****.

I have found that it is easy from that point on to explain why gun ownership is important and I can justify ownership of the "toys" most of us would really like to have.

The ACLU and GOA for example have set aside differences to work together on specific issues to stop the Feds from destroying the bill of rights even more. Right now, it is shredded quite a bit.

That is all I am really advocating we do with NORML.

We don't have to sign onto their core agenda, what we can do is see what areas we agree on and only work on those areas.

Those of you who support the drug war can still support the drug war.

Personally I am living a rather "clean life". I just don't have time, the inclination or desire to put toxic substances into my body,that is me.

Many people on this forum probably drink Alcohol and I imagine some even deliberately drink to get drunk.

Between 1918 and 1934, that was a "serious crime".

I agree that gun rights organizations need to be focused on their "core mission", but having tunnel vision is a strategy that can get you blind sided.

Being tunnel visioned means we lose targets of opportunity. It also means we get hit out of left field.

How many "Hunters" and other "Sportsmen" would be willing to give up "handguns and Black rifles" since they have no "sporting purposes".

For many gun owners, it is a "hobby", on in which many sell their guns after they have kids. Many of these gun owners will vote for Obama.

The reality is "medical marijuana' has significant public support, each time it has been put on the ballot, it gains more public support.

I remember Los Gatos Police Chief Larry Todd actively campaigning against prop 215 in 1996. The residents of Los Gatos heard his words and they overwhelming voted for prop 215 with 66 percent of the vote.

Arizona voters approved their med marijuania proposition by 78 percent of the vote, of course the legislature for the first time in history invalidated the vote.

The message Arizona voters got was that they can vote whatever they want to as long as it doesn't go against "public policy." So much for a government that is the "servant of the people".

Regardless of your position on the Med Marijuania issue, this is something that should concern you.

I don't have an issue with having laws and laws should be only passed if there is a legitimate need for government intervention and the laws will fix the problems.

Governments need to use restraint in passing laws, otherwise what we get is tyranny.

Our system of government is based on voluntary compliance with the laws.

Unjust or stupid laws undermine respect for the law and jeopardize "they rule of law:" When the Roberti Roos AW bill was passed, it is estimated that less than 10 percent of gun owners complied with the law.

AB23, it is estimated that registration was less than 10 percent.

Remember the 55mph speed limit, the law that saves lives. Funny how the traffic fatality rate didn't skyrocket after it's repeal.

Jackie Speers wants to bring back a national 60mph speed limit by the way.

Remember the AWB. Funny how crime actually dropped after it expired.

Some here haven't commented that we don't want a link to drugs and guns.

The reality is the public already has linked guns and drugs, especially in the urban areas where gun control legislation is oftern created.

Gun control is advocated because the politicians in those areas do not have the ablitity to fix the problems they created, so they have to blame someone, and we are an easy target for them.

All movements are going to have growing pains and people are going to disagree.

The fact that we can disagree, but move forward on core issues means we are way stronger than our opponents.

Nicki

Guntech
08-10-2008, 4:20 PM
NORML(National Organization for the Reform of Marijuania laws).

NORML is definitely on the left side of the political spectrum.

If we look at the Federal gun laws and the Federal Marijaunia laws they are based on what I feel are misapplicaton of "tax laws and the commerce clause".

Medical use of Marijuania has broad popular support based on the way people vote. While most Americans oppose "legalization" , they support medical use.

A large amount of Americans believe that the government is lying about the dangers of Marijuania as well as other "non pharmacy drugs" or "alternative treatments" for health problems.

47 percent of Americans will get cancer some time in their lifetime, and chemo's nasty side effects are enough to motivate many people to give marijuania a try.

Most of the people in NORML view government agencies with severe distrust.
Yes, they are on the left of the political spectrum, but they have also been the victims of political persecution by the federal courts and as such, it makes them less likely to trust the government.

The NORML people may be open to the concept of reducing the size of government so that they can reduce the damage a government can impose.

Health care is a big issue, and alternative health care and government suppression of it are big issues which it appears NORML is aligning with.

After Prop 215 was passed in 1996, the Fed and state should have set up pilot Med Marijuania programs and should have instituted honest studies on the medical value of marijuania, neither of which they did.

Many medical marijauna patients have had to defend their "crops" and they have done so with "guns":eek:

Any thoughts from you guys?

Nicki

Hell no, are you smoking the stuff!? Those losers are all for peace and love and think guns can kill people without a person holding it. And if they arent that type they are the other type:scum bag drug dealers who should be sent to an island in the middle of the ocean and napalmed. :)

Meplat
08-10-2008, 5:10 PM
That reminds me of a debate i did some time ago by comparing a gun ban in the US to the war on drugs. But then again my target audiance was 18-24 so it was fine.

When a liberal on the left, and a conservative on the right start around a very large tree, following their nobler instincts, where they meet in the back they will find a libertarian. If following their baser instincts they will find a statest.

I warn both camps: “To have it you must give it.”

That said, I have never encountered a piece of metal that effects the way you think, feel, emote, react, or process information. I do know of chemicals that when ingested into the body, will. Knock yourself out, use whatever you want, it’s your funeral. Just be aware that some things should be done in a secure environment, and/or with at least some adult supervision, to protect the user and the public.

I will probably vote for John Mc Cane because the Supreme Court appointments and foreign policy is just so critical right now. But, god I wish I could vote for Bob Bare. Ron is a little goofy in spots.





Libertarian and socialist are not the same thing.

:rolleyes::p

Meplat
08-10-2008, 5:28 PM
I did not resort to name calling. My mind on medical marijuana was made up after I saw said relative go thru her ordeal. I am not a weed user. I do not have a medical marijuana prescription and I do not smoke or do drugs.Thanks for labeling me as one though and for being extremely mature.

I don't use the stuff, never have, but I have a "proscription" because I thought it might help if some scumbag ever dropped a "bag" on me. The point that the prescription process is a joke is correct. But, I think everyone should have one.

nothing4u
08-10-2008, 5:43 PM
Pot + Guns = Political suicide.

Meplat
08-10-2008, 5:57 PM
Breathes there a man with soul so dead?

Apparently yes.

Do I intentionally drive 85 MPH when the speed limit is 70 MPH? No, I do not.

Meplat
08-10-2008, 6:47 PM
Niki:

I think it is obvious that the RKBA community as a whole is not ready to sign on to the NORMAL cause. I, for one, support you even though Im am not a user. I think the best you can hope for is the individual support of individual libertarians within the RKBA community. I support the many here that suggest the linkage might be harmful to both camps,

For the record, I wa hoping that we would look at government abuse of the tax code and the commerce clause as vehicles to destroy our rights.

Federal gun laws and Federal Drug laws have their roots by expansive use of both the tax system and abuse of the commerce clause.

I have no problem with use of taxes for legitimate government functions, I do have an issue of the use of the tax code for transfer of wealth or social engineering. That is why taxes are so high.

The Commerce Clause was created to encourage and promote free trade between the states.

It's perversion to allow the Federal government to regulate everything under the guise that everything effects interstate commerce turns the concept of a limited government on its head.

Yes, I know most of you say Federal law supercedes everything. The reason Federal law supercedes everything is because they "expanded their authority" through abuse of the taxing clauses and redefining the "commerce clause".

We will not get back a "Free Country" and our "Gun Rights" until we fix these problems. We will not be able to fix these problems unless we can build broad support across the political spectrum to do so.

Even if we don't succeed in getting outright reforms, we can change public opinion through education, and slow down, maybe even reverse the current slide of things.

The reality is the housing crisis, our national debt, our trade debt, our energy crisis exist because of the government trying to impose national policies.

Often these so called policies in reality benefit a special interest group.

These directly effect most Americans.

This is information that is not taught in the schools, and when I explain this to most non political people, the common reaction is that this is bull****.

I have found that it is easy from that point on to explain why gun ownership is important and I can justify ownership of the "toys" most of us would really like to have.

The ACLU and GOA for example have set aside differences to work together on specific issues to stop the Feds from destroying the bill of rights even more. Right now, it is shredded quite a bit.

That is all I am really advocating we do with NORML.

We don't have to sign onto their core agenda, what we can do is see what areas we agree on and only work on those areas.

Those of you who support the drug war can still support the drug war.

Personally I am living a rather "clean life". I just don't have time, the inclination or desire to put toxic substances into my body,that is me.

Many people on this forum probably drink Alcohol and I imagine some even deliberately drink to get drunk.

Between 1918 and 1934, that was a "serious crime".

I agree that gun rights organizations need to be focused on their "core mission", but having tunnel vision is a strategy that can get you blind sided.

Being tunnel visioned means we lose targets of opportunity. It also means we get hit out of left field.

How many "Hunters" and other "Sportsmen" would be willing to give up "handguns and Black rifles" since they have no "sporting purposes".

For many gun owners, it is a "hobby", on in which many sell their guns after they have kids. Many of these gun owners will vote for Obama.

The reality is "medical marijuana' has significant public support, each time it has been put on the ballot, it gains more public support.

I remember Los Gatos Police Chief Larry Todd actively campaigning against prop 215 in 1996. The residents of Los Gatos heard his words and they overwhelming voted for prop 215 with 66 percent of the vote.

Arizona voters approved their med marijuania proposition by 78 percent of the vote, of course the legislature for the first time in history invalidated the vote.

The message Arizona voters got was that they can vote whatever they want to as long as it doesn't go against "public policy." So much for a government that is the "servant of the people".

Regardless of your position on the Med Marijuania issue, this is something that should concern you.

I don't have an issue with having laws and laws should be only passed if there is a legitimate need for government intervention and the laws will fix the problems.

Governments need to use restraint in passing laws, otherwise what we get is tyranny.

Our system of government is based on voluntary compliance with the laws.

Unjust or stupid laws undermine respect for the law and jeopardize "they rule of law:" When the Roberti Roos AW bill was passed, it is estimated that less than 10 percent of gun owners complied with the law.

AB23, it is estimated that registration was less than 10 percent.

Remember the 55mph speed limit, the law that saves lives. Funny how the traffic fatality rate didn't skyrocket after it's repeal.

Jackie Speers wants to bring back a national 60mph speed limit by the way.

Remember the AWB. Funny how crime actually dropped after it expired.

Some here haven't commented that we don't want a link to drugs and guns.

The reality is the public already has linked guns and drugs, especially in the urban areas where gun control legislation is oftern created.

Gun control is advocated because the politicians in those areas do not have the ablitity to fix the problems they created, so they have to blame someone, and we are an easy target for them.

All movements are going to have growing pains and people are going to disagree.

The fact that we can disagree, but move forward on core issues means we are way stronger than our opponents.

Nicki

SkyStorm82
08-10-2008, 6:52 PM
I don't use the stuff, never have, but I have a "proscription" because I thought it might help if some scumbag ever dropped a "bag" on me.

You mean along the lines of "This ain't my pants!!!"?:43:

I met a guy that got one from the doc for stress. Another guy said he got his when he stubbed his toe.

Shotgun Man
08-10-2008, 6:58 PM
I don't think calgunners should be hating on the medical pot-smokers.

Libertarian ideals command that they should be left alone, as should gun owners be left alone.

I liked Ron Paul's statement that one of the first things he would do if elected president would be to stop DEA raids of medical marijuana operations in those states that have legalized it. He couldn't imagine a greater waste of money. I concur.

tophatjones
08-10-2008, 7:05 PM
This thread has been a very difficult read. Although I respect that some forum members have strong values, I can't stand the dominating attitude imposed by those who see only their values and opinions as morally correct. Although cleverly disguised as expressions of viewpoints, their speech patterns reflect an inherent desire for control. If these people came into power, they'd be totalitarian and cause a lot of suffering.

As for my personal views, I think that a pro gun organization should not have an alliance with a pro drug organization. It'd be political suicide for both groups. A better alternative is to create a group that is pro freedom. A group that supports freedoms would place less emphasis on the differences between the two groups and place more emphasis on their similarities. However, this is probably more idealistic than realistic, because it would be difficult for members to leave their differences at the door.

As a side note, I have a premonition we will increasingly be asking ourselves this question: whatever happened to liberty? We may eventually lose those freedoms specifically important to us if we try and restrict those that are important to others.

Knight
08-10-2008, 7:32 PM
I agree with tophatjones. Frankly, this whole thread makes me sick. Sorry Nicki, but I don't think you can have an intelligent discussion on your issue (which I respectfully disagree with, BTW) when you have people who give off a knee-jerk reaction whenever pot comes up like they're lifetime Democrats working on the committee to re-elect Diane Fienstein.

Hell no, are you smoking the stuff!? Those losers are all for peace and love and think guns can kill people without a person holding it. And if they arent that type they are the other type:scum bag drug dealers who should be sent to an island in the middle of the ocean and napalmed. :)

You really have no idea what dope growers are like, do you?

aplinker
08-10-2008, 9:20 PM
I agree with tophatjones. Frankly, this whole thread makes me sick. Sorry Nicki, but I don't think you can have an intelligent discussion on your issue (which I respectfully disagree with, BTW) when you have people who give off a knee-jerk reaction whenever pot comes up like they're lifetime Democrats working on the committee to re-elect Diane Fienstein.



You really have no idea what dope growers are like, do you?

+1 to this and Tophat.

:)

1.) Because you see parallels doesn't mean you're on the same track or train.

2.) There are a lot of people who have knee-jerk reactions, not just to marijuana on our side of the camp, but firearms on the other. You risk dramatic infighting for the sake of ... ? I don't see the upside.

mikehaas
08-11-2008, 7:08 AM
There probably is not a strong enough link and the general public's negative perception of mixing drugs and guns would be quite a challenge to overcome. But philosophically, they're both along the lines of "I'm an adult, leave me alone".
WHAT? We have an individual constitutional right to own firearms!

There is no moral equity to these 2 activities - one is for protection of country, self and loved ones, the other simply to intoxicate oneself (medical usage is NOT what the "legalize marijuana" crowd is concerned with) - and linking the 2 is EXTREMELY detrimental to our cause.

If you want to convince NRA to run away from calguns as fast as possible and that all of this hard work has been a huge mistake, just continue proposing the linking of guns and marijuana - or the linking of guns and ANY other issue. (Thankfully, there is too much political awareness in the leadership of calguns to allow such a thing to happen.)

PLEASE - FLUSH THIS CONCEPT FAST!

MudCamper
08-11-2008, 8:07 AM
No.
There's enough doper libertarian-socialists infesting the RKBA sphere (and lying on their 4473s) already.

rayra, do you understand that libertarians and socialists are on opposite sides of the political spectrum? That's like saying, "fascist-communist". It makes no sense.

Kestryll
08-11-2008, 8:26 AM
This is not an alliance that would be beneficial to either this website nor the 2nd Amendment fight, perception becomes reality all too easily today even if just in people's minds.

This is also a very polarizing issue and we have enough factions in our own community without inviting more reasons to argue amongst ourselves in to it.

Frankly I don't see where this can go anywhere from here but in to more fractionalization and that serves no one. We'll call this one done.