PDA

View Full Version : How does the legalization of Pot effect our right to bear arms.


itr1275
10-21-2009, 10:38 AM
Mr. Obama has taken a stance that the states should be able to decide how and what to do with medical marijuana. This effectively said he is not going to get into the debate, and empowered the state to do what they please. It's a simple strategy, manage by delegation then he is not the good guy or the bad guy.

So the question is, do you think he will wuss out and do the same thing with gun control? Will he empower each state to set it's own laws and disregard the 2nd amendment?

If so this means that we would be left to the whims of the, ever so intelligent, politicians in Sacramento. Then it depends on what they can get away with before law suits, injunctions, and recalls are brought about to stop them. None of which will work because the courts all collect their check from the crazies in Sacramento. So it's back to the Federal court which says it's a state's right.

One more question. I've noticed that every anti-gun bill that has passed in this state, "for our own safety", has been done with out a public vote. Why is that/how come this is not put to a ballot?

Just thinking . . .
Jerold

kermit315
10-21-2009, 10:44 AM
He passed on actually doing anything, i.e., the pro pot people are fighting for legalization, and he isnt doing that. All he is doing is not enforcing the laws that are there, in an attempt (imo) to buy votes. Later, if asked he can say he never legalized pot.

Also, I dont think it will help us as far as gun rights go, because the left hates guns, period. It wouldnt be the first time they applied a double standard.

ETA: anything that is passed, being billed as "for your own safety", usually equates to a mere control issue and power play.

dantodd
10-21-2009, 10:52 AM
Mr. Obama has taken a stance that the states should be able to decide how and what to do with medical marijuana. This effectively said he is not going to get into the debate, and empowered the state to do what they please. It's a simple strategy, manage by delegation then he is not the good guy or the bad guy.

So the question is, do you think he will wuss out and do the same thing with gun control? Will he empower each state to set it's own laws and disregard the 2nd amendment?

If so this means that we would be left to the whims of the, ever so intelligent, politicians in Sacramento. Then it depends on what they can get away with before law suits, injunctions, and recalls are brought about to stop them. None of which will work because the courts all collect their check from the crazies in Sacramento. So it's back to the Federal court which says it's a state's right.

One more question. I've noticed that every anti-gun bill that has passed in this state, "for our own safety", has been done with out a public vote. Why is that/how come this is not put to a ballot?

Just thinking . . .
Jerold

The right to smoke pot is not held by the people as the right to bear arms is. Incorporation is the key to protection from infringement by the State. Just as it was for the others in the bill of rights.

squishyhead
10-21-2009, 11:04 AM
Random Trivia. Do you know that the first marijuana/hemp law, required farmers to grow it!

GrizzlyGuy
10-21-2009, 11:37 AM
Obama's backing off on federal enforcement related to medical marijuana is consistent with the Constitution, and happens to agree with Ron Paul's position (although not to the same degree). The federal government has no constitutional authority to regulate marijuana that is produced, sold and consumed entirely within a state's borders - the ability to regulate that is reserved to the states by the 10th amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

So, his position is to allow states to do what they wish.

2A is a different issue entirely. RKBA is an explicit right in the federal constitution. Incorporating it to the states via 14A prevents the states from doing as they wish and denying the right.

wash
10-21-2009, 11:54 AM
When we fill out the forms to purchase a gun (4***?), there is a drug question. If you lie on there you just did a bad thing, maybe a felony.

So smoking weed and buying guns could still get you in trouble even if smoking weed is legal in CA.

It reminds me that they brought down Capone with tax laws. I wonder how many CA pot farmers will pay the federal marijuana taxes and income taxes? He never said he would keep the IRS out of CA.

nicki
10-21-2009, 12:08 PM
Obama is reading the writing on the wall.

He wants big government, but in order to have that power, he must protect the "commerce clause" and the suppression of the 9th and 10th amenments at all costs.

The Politics of Pot will eventually bring on a "Commerce Clause" case that will also involve the 9th and 10th amendents and could significantly cut down on the power of the federal government over our lives.

Any politician who votes for the pending AB390 by default admits that prohibition is a failed policy. If prohibition of pot failed, how is it going to work with guns?

Since half of the gun crime in this country is either directly/indirectly related to the drug war, anything that would cripple the drug trade would probably lead to a reduction in gun related crime.

The issue for gun owners and pot smokers will be the following. Do you work together and each group has "their rights" or do you continue to support attacking each other and destroying the bill of rights.

BTW, I talked with leaders at NORML and key leaders privately are supporting our RKBA. On their end, we could work together.

Nicki

yellowfin
10-21-2009, 12:18 PM
While that is applause worthy on their parts, the problem is that being linked with the pro pot movement usually isn't good for the image of whatever particular cause in question, especially not gun rights. Industrial hemp, for example, makes absolute sense to be reintroduced as a crop to be grown in the US but has had its reputation completely sabotaged by the NORML crowd latching onto it and has been shot down every time because of its opponents using marijuana as an ostensible reason. The image problem is as bad or worse than gun ownership in left leaning cities and it's horribly persistent. It's horrible and it's wrong that it's that way, but it is what it is.

sfwdiy
10-21-2009, 12:21 PM
Obama is reading the writing on the wall.

He wants big government, but in order to have that power, he must protect the "commerce clause" and the suppression of the 9th and 10th amenments at all costs.

The Politics of Pot will eventually bring on a "Commerce Clause" case that will also involve the 9th and 10th amendents and could significantly cut down on the power of the federal government over our lives.

Any politician who votes for the pending AB390 by default admits that prohibition is a failed policy. If prohibition of pot failed, how is it going to work with guns?

Since half of the gun crime in this country is either directly/indirectly related to the drug war, anything that would cripple the drug trade would probably lead to a reduction in gun related crime.

The issue for gun owners and pot smokers will be the following. Do you work together and each group has "their rights" or do you continue to support attacking each other and destroying the bill of rights.

BTW, I talked with leaders at NORML and key leaders privately are supporting our RKBA. On their end, we could work together.

Nicki

Niki, I agree with you entirely in principle, but the issue at hand here is one of PR, not whether or not the two causes seem complimentary on paper.

To the vast majority of citizens in this country, the idea of people with guns getting high on grass is somewhat disturbing. Whether or not this view is reasonable or whether or not marijuana is dangerous in any way is immaterial.

Also, marijuana use is anathema to the majority of people across the US who are strongly in support of the 2A. Again, whether or not this view is rational, reasonable, right or wrong is immaterial.

Even with as much common ground as the two groups may have in terms of personal freedom and right-to-privacy issues, I see this as a non-starter for both parties. 2A supporters will be branded as irresponsible drug users and marijuana supporters will be called dangerous and violent for their support of firearms rights.

I think it's lose-lose from a public relations perspective.

--B

Suvorov
10-21-2009, 1:23 PM
As I recall, there is nothing in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights that mentions "controlled substances." Thus, the Federal Government has no Constitutional authority to regulate it. This is something that could easily be up to the States.

Firearms on the other hand are SPECIFICALLY mentioned in the Constitution as an individual right that the Federal Government (and post incorporation - State Government) can not infringe upon.

Apples and Oranges - although that won't prevent those who like to pervert our government from trying to make some sort of equivalence.

GrizzlyGuy
10-21-2009, 1:27 PM
The issue for gun owners and pot smokers will be the following. Do you work together and each group has "their rights" or do you continue to support attacking each other and destroying the bill of rights.

BTW, I talked with leaders at NORML and key leaders privately are supporting our RKBA. On their end, we could work together.

+1

This guy's article is a good read on that topic:

"Until pot-smokers and gun owners and low-taxers and sexual minorities recognize that liberty is indivisible and that we’re all in this together, we’re going to be picked off piecemeal by government officials all too happy to exploit our mutual antagonisms."

http://www.bspcn.com/2009/02/13/you-respect-my-rights-and-ill-respect-yours/

MrPlutonium
10-21-2009, 1:41 PM
Here's an examiner article on this too

http://www.examiner.com/x-2581-St-Louis-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m10d21-Medical-marijuana-and-guns-The-Obama-administrations-split-personality-on-state-sovereignty?cid=exrss-St-Louis-Gun-Rights-Examiner

nicki
10-21-2009, 1:47 PM
To the vast majority of citizens in this country, the idea of people with guns getting high on grass is somewhat disturbing. Whether or not this view is reasonable or whether or not marijuana is dangerous in any way is immaterial.

The idea of people with guns getting drunk is more disturbing to me, yet many gun owners can drink, can even get drunk, and be responsible by putting away their guns and not driving cars.

Also, marijuana use is anathema to the majority of people across the US who are strongly in support of the 2A. Again, whether or not this view is rational, reasonable, right or wrong is immaterial.

Yes there are people who have problems with people getting high, just like their are people who have issues with people actually enjoying sex, drinking alcohol or doing anything else that might be fun in life

Even with as much common ground as the two groups may have in terms of personal freedom and right-to-privacy issues, I see this as a non-starter for both parties. 2A supporters will be branded as irresponsible drug users and marijuana supporters will be called dangerous and violent for their support of firearms rights.

Well, there may be some people who will yell that, I guess we have a problem that a large part of the population has a brain disorder called NANNITIS.

I think it's lose-lose from a public relations perspective.

It does have probelms, but you know that a large number of people are getting tired of the Nanny state, so I will give this one a wash.

But I like your comments, they are well thought out and will be issues that will have to be addressed.



Nicki

itr1275
10-21-2009, 8:31 PM
[QUOTE=GrizzlyGuy;3248651]
"Until pot-smokers and gun owners and low-taxers and sexual minorities recognize that liberty is indivisible and that we’re all in this together, we’re going to be picked off piecemeal by government officials all too happy to exploit our mutual antagonisms."
QUOTE]

I would be happy to repeal Prop 8, and legalize pot when they repeal Roberti-Roos Assault Weapon Control Act, SB23, AB962 and all the other stupid gun "control" laws we never voted on.

Dr Rockso
10-21-2009, 9:09 PM
"Until pot-smokers and gun owners and low-taxers and sexual minorities recognize that liberty is indivisible and that we’re all in this together, we’re going to be picked off piecemeal by government officials all too happy to exploit our mutual antagonisms."
Good quote, too bad it's a little long to put on a bumper sticker.

HondaMasterTech
10-21-2009, 9:41 PM
I have a right to bear arms. In fact, I'm going to call my plastic surgeon right now!

7x57
10-21-2009, 10:05 PM
I have a right to bear arms. In fact, I'm going to call my plastic surgeon right now!

The main problem is removing them from the bear. :eek:

7x57

HondaMasterTech
10-21-2009, 10:22 PM
The main problem is removing them from the bear. :eek:

7x57

That's why we have guns. ;)

7x57
10-21-2009, 10:46 PM
That's why we have guns. ;)

Oooh, riiight. Those things. :D

7x57

Alaric
10-21-2009, 10:50 PM
Mr. Obama has taken a stance that the states should be able to decide how and what to do with medical marijuana. This effectively said he is not going to get into the debate, and empowered the state to do what they please. It's a simple strategy, manage by delegation then he is not the good guy or the bad guy.

So the question is, do you think he will wuss out and do the same thing with gun control? Will he empower each state to set it's own laws and disregard the 2nd amendment?

If so this means that we would be left to the whims of the, ever so intelligent, politicians in Sacramento. Then it depends on what they can get away with before law suits, injunctions, and recalls are brought about to stop them. None of which will work because the courts all collect their check from the crazies in Sacramento. So it's back to the Federal court which says it's a state's right.

One more question. I've noticed that every anti-gun bill that has passed in this state, "for our own safety", has been done with out a public vote. Why is that/how come this is not put to a ballot?

Just thinking . . .
Jerold

I'm confused how the OP is equating pot legalization to 2nd Amd rights. They are in no way in the same legal sphere at this time. Just because we might vote for legalization at the state level in California now, has absolutely NO bearing on what Obama thinks about guns, or his views on "state empowerment" on gun control. This is a false equation.

As for whether they make good bed fellows, pot legalization and gun rights, the answer to that would be - only to libertarians who actually care about our rights, ALL OF THEM, like me.

Gray Peterson
10-22-2009, 2:01 AM
The legalization movement for cannabis in California has absolutely zero and zippo effect on federal gun laws. You are not allowed to buy guns from a dealer, or possess them, if you're an unlawful user or addicted to a controlled substance.

The only way to deal with this issue is to have cannabis rescheduled (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_rescheduling_in_the_United_States) at the federal level.

If it's rescheduled, to either schedule 3 or 4 (with perscription) or 5 (over the counter), then at least insofar as federal law is concerned, a user of the substance would be legal to possess. State laws, of course, will very.

artherd
10-22-2009, 3:23 AM
Good quote, too bad it's a little long to put on a bumper sticker.

Gays, Geezers, and Gunnies - let's hang together or we will surely hang separately.

itr1275
10-22-2009, 8:52 AM
I'm confused how the OP is equating pot legalization to 2nd Amd rights. They are in no way in the same legal sphere at this time. Just because we might vote for legalization at the state level in California now, has absolutely NO bearing on what Obama thinks about guns, or his views on "state empowerment" on gun control. This is a false equation.

As for whether they make good bed fellows, pot legalization and gun rights, the answer to that would be - only to libertarians who actually care about our rights, ALL OF THEM, like me.

Basically he is saying, it's not my problem or decision. Talk to your state. The difference is that firearms ownership is covered in the constitiution, and smoking pot is not. But that never stopped Sacramento, and many other places, from try to eliminate that right.

By empowering the state, he is not "the one" that legalizes pot, and he can send all the opponents to the state to complain. If he allows the states takes the same tact with gun control, he is also not "the one" that violates the 2nd amendment, just as he promised in his campaign rhetoric.

BTW Libertarianism is correct in my book. Give me the basics: police, fire, military and roads are optional. I will take care of the rest. Unfortunatly this is a bit too darwinian for the general population. Could you see Gavin Newsome out taking down a deer, then cleaning it? Ok so he could barder for it, but he has no tangible skills outside politics that I know of. Although he did revolutionize the wine industry with a "screw cap".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlumpJack_Wine_Shop

dustoff31
10-22-2009, 9:15 AM
The legalization movement for cannabis in California has absolutely zero and zippo effect on federal gun laws. You are not allowed to buy guns from a dealer, or possess them, if you're an unlawful user or addicted to a controlled substance.

The only way to deal with this issue is to have cannabis rescheduled (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_rescheduling_in_the_United_States) at the federal level.

If it's rescheduled, to either schedule 3 or 4 (with perscription) or 5 (over the counter), then at least insofar as federal law is concerned, a user of the substance would be legal to possess. State laws, of course, will very.


I agree completely. Unless the fed laws regarding pot and gun ownership are changed what a state says regarding the legality of pot is irrelevant. All you would have is what you have now, the feds word that they won't prosecute. What if they change their mind? What if the next administration says to jail with them all?

Will Obama go out on a limb and support legalization at the fed level? Would he even sign such a bill if it reached his desk? I seriously doubt it.

wash
10-22-2009, 9:17 AM
Sure, Obama could do that and say that the ATF won't enforce federal laws in CA.

That doesn't mean CA can go hog wild with gun laws after we get incorporation.

Our circuit court decisions will still be legally binding against the state, so it would take a governor ordering the police to enforce unconstitutional laws and the courts to make unconstitutional verdicts to infringe our rights.

That's not a very likely outcome.

dustoff31
10-22-2009, 9:24 AM
Sure, Obama could do that and say that the ATF won't enforce federal laws in CA.

That doesn't mean CA can go hog wild with gun laws after we get incorporation.

Our circuit court decisions will still be legally binding against the state, so it would take a governor ordering the police to enforce unconstitutional laws and the courts to make unconstitutional verdicts to infringe our rights.

That's not a very likely outcome.

Not sure if you were replying to my post or not, but the point that I'm making is that if CA were to legalize pot without a change in fed law, CA authorities aren't the ones you should worry about.

What if Obama changes his mind and tells ATF to enforce federal law? Or when Obama leaves office and the new guy tells ATF the same.

wash
10-22-2009, 9:36 AM
I was responding to itr1275. Evidently he has some fear that regardless of the constitution or SCOTUS rulings Obama is going to let CA take away our guns any way.

nicki
10-22-2009, 10:15 AM
Gray is right about Federal law and legalization of Pot in California will force a constitutional court showdown.

The issues would be the "commerce clause", the 9th amendment, and the 10th amendment just to name a few.

Yes, the constitution doesn't directly spell out the right to smoke weed, but it does have a general rights provision called the 9th amendment and I would argue that a free person has a natural right to put whatever they want into their own bodies.

The position of that we should control what people put into their own bodies because of what they might do is a "prior constraint".

We are trying to get rid of unconstitutional VICTIM DISARMAMENT laws because they are bogus prior constrant laws.

The "Wickard Case" which re interpreted the "Commerce Clause" to enable expansive Federal government is total BS.

When talking to "average folks" off this board and it doesn't matter if they are left or right, I have yet to met someone who when I explain in plain language how the case came to be thinks that it was a good ruling.

The same with the "Miller case" which upheld the NFA1934 and Crunshiak which killed the 14th amendment.

The 9th and 10th amendments right now are effectively dead amendments, but that could change with action on both gun and pot issues.

Both gun control laws and pot laws have racist roots, there is no legit public saftey issue, rather the laws were originally enacted to strip certain groups of their fundamental rights.

Federal gun and pot laws are not an exercise of the taxing authority of the United States, they are an abuse and designed to make an end run around the bill of rights.

The choice is simple, do we want a "Free State" or a "Police State".

More and more people are waking up because they have been knocked out of their comfort zones and more people are "getting it".



Nicki

Mitch
10-22-2009, 10:19 AM
By empowering the state, he is not "the one" that legalizes pot, and he can send all the opponents to the state to complain. If he allows the states takes the same tact with gun control, he is also not "the one" that violates the 2nd amendment, just as he promised in his campaign rhetoric.

In the old days, it was the Republicans who were all for States' rights.

Boy is it hard to keep track these days.

MasterYong
10-22-2009, 10:33 AM
When we fill out the forms to purchase a gun (4***?), there is a drug question. If you lie on there you just did a bad thing, maybe a felony.

So smoking weed and buying guns could still get you in trouble even if smoking weed is legal in CA.

It reminds me that they brought down Capone with tax laws. I wonder how many CA pot farmers will pay the federal marijuana taxes and income taxes? He never said he would keep the IRS out of CA.

the question reads something to the effect of "do you UNLAWFULLY use, or are addicted to..."

if CA legalizes pot then it's legal in CA to smoke. If you answered no the that question, and pot was legal, and you'd just smoked a joint, you wouldn't by lying at all.

I don't see how Obama's stance on medical marijuana laws has anything to do with the RKBA, or with legalizing pot at all...

What's this thread about?

kermit315
10-22-2009, 10:53 AM
the question reads something to the effect of "do you UNLAWFULLY use, or are addicted to..."

if CA legalizes pot then it's legal in CA to smoke. If you answered no the that question, and pot was legal, and you'd just smoked a joint, you wouldn't by lying at all.

I don't see how Obama's stance on medical marijuana laws has anything to do with the RKBA, or with legalizing pot at all...

What's this thread about?

Thats not totally correct. You would still be an unlawful user, as it is still illegal at a federal level, regardless of enforcement.

MasterYong
10-22-2009, 11:15 AM
Thats not totally correct. You would still be an unlawful user, as it is still illegal at a federal level, regardless of enforcement.

Not by historical interpretation. State laws supersede federal laws. That's the only reason medical marijuana is possible in the first place.

dustoff31
10-22-2009, 11:24 AM
Not by historical interpretation. State laws supersede federal laws. That's the only reason medical marijuana is possible in the first place.

That may well be. However, as it stands the only reason medical marijuana users are not in federal prison until a federal judge agrees, is because the feds choose not to prosecute, not because they can't prosecute.

Unless federal law is changed either though legislation or a court ruling, the same would be true if a state simply legalized pot.



State laws supersede federal laws.

Be careful what you wish for. It's CA says you can't have certain firearms, >10 rd mags, EBRs, NFA items, not the feds. So you are OK with that? State laws supercede federal laws?

kermit315
10-22-2009, 11:30 AM
Not by historical interpretation. State laws supersede federal laws. That's the only reason medical marijuana is possible in the first place.

Explain that to those dispensaries that keep getting raided by DEA.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/05/dea-led-by-bush-continues-pot-raids/#

There was another one recently, I think in LA, back in August, but this work computer is slow and I cant find the link.

Anyway, I would like to see some proof that state laws supercede federal laws, because if you are using pot as an example, its obviously not the case.

KylaGWolf
10-22-2009, 11:34 AM
The only time a state law will supersede a federal law is if the state law is more restrictive which is why this state has so many screwed up gun laws. That is why even though CA passed a medical marijuana law that it is still a crime at the federal level to use it.

I could start another whole debate on the stupidity of medical marijuana but this is not the place to do so. :)

KylaGWolf
10-22-2009, 11:42 AM
the question reads something to the effect of "do you UNLAWFULLY use, or are addicted to..."

if CA legalizes pot then it's legal in CA to smoke. If you answered no the that question, and pot was legal, and you'd just smoked a joint, you wouldn't by lying at all.

I don't see how Obama's stance on medical marijuana laws has anything to do with the RKBA, or with legalizing pot at all...

What's this thread about?

Here is the deal the federal government is not saying that smoking pot is legal all they are saying is if you have a legitimate reason to smoke it for medical reasons then we are not going to bust you. Now personally I don't see any need to smoke pot even for medical reasons when there is a pill form that does just as much good and doesn't send me to the ER with not being able to breathe because I walked near where the person is smoking it. And I know for a fact the pill form of this medication works just as well as the smokeable stuff since I have had family members use it to fight the effects of the cancer treatment he was having several friends that uses the pill form for their medical condition.

Niki I agree in theory that no one should be able to tell us what we can do to our own bodies but now I will play devils advocate. We all know that if one drinks too much and gets behind the wheel of a car is a dangerous thing. There are also drugs out there that do major damage to ones body. I watched teens that had everything going for them ruin their lives with drugs and alcohol when I worked in juvenile probation. Most of those teens started out smoking a little weed and graduated to much worse. I have also watched some of my daughters friends go down that same path. So to me its not all that harmless, and I am sure that I will get slammed for my opinion.

Someone else mentioned as to why they are busting the dispensaries. Well one reason could be that they are not following the guidelines on who is allowed to buy and how much they are to buy. In other words they let just about anyone buy even if they do not have a legitimate reason to do so. Some of the so called prescriptions weren't even written by a person with the authority to do so or for conditions that are on an approved list.

MasterYong
10-22-2009, 12:13 PM
Here is the deal the federal government is not saying that smoking pot is legal all they are saying is if you have a legitimate reason to smoke it for medical reasons then we are not going to bust you. Now personally I don't see any need to smoke pot even for medical reasons when there is a pill form that does just as much good and doesn't send me to the ER with not being able to breathe because I walked near where the person is smoking it. And I know for a fact the pill form of this medication works just as well as the smokeable stuff since I have had family members use it to fight the effects of the cancer treatment he was having several friends that uses the pill form for their medical condition.

Niki I agree in theory that no one should be able to tell us what we can do to our own bodies but now I will play devils advocate. We all know that if one drinks too much and gets behind the wheel of a car is a dangerous thing. There are also drugs out there that do major damage to ones body. I watched teens that had everything going for them ruin their lives with drugs and alcohol when I worked in juvenile probation. Most of those teens started out smoking a little weed and graduated to much worse. I have also watched some of my daughters friends go down that same path. So to me its not all that harmless, and I am sure that I will get slammed for my opinion.

Someone else mentioned as to why they are busting the dispensaries. Well one reason could be that they are not following the guidelines on who is allowed to buy and how much they are to buy. In other words they let just about anyone buy even if they do not have a legitimate reason to do so. Some of the so called prescriptions weren't even written by a person with the authority to do so or for conditions that are on an approved list.

Why's you quote my post? You didn't address anything I stated. Maybe you meant to quote someone else???

My hometown (that I lived in until 2 weeks ago) is Arcata, CA, recently named "pot city USA" by A&E. I'm in the center of this more than most folks, you don't need to explain it to me.

Also, for the record, most people that have tried Marinol state that it doesn't work with a darn, and there is compelling scientific evidence that THC is not the only active ingredient in marijuana (Marinol only contains THC and none of the other active chemicals. In addition that are four different kinds of THC present in different quantities in marijuana depending on the strain, and Marinol only has one of them). I know it sounds overly-informed for a conservative gun-owner, but they teach this stuff in high school biology where I grew up LOL.

nicki
10-22-2009, 12:31 PM
Niki I agree in theory that no one should be able to tell us what we can do to our own bodies but now I will play devils advocate. We all know that if one drinks too much and gets behind the wheel of a car is a dangerous thing. There are also drugs out there that do major damage to ones body. I watched teens that had everything going for them ruin their lives with drugs and alcohol when I worked in juvenile probation. Most of those teens started out smoking a little weed and graduated to much worse. I have also watched some of my daughters friends go down that same path. So to me its not all that harmless, and I am sure that I will get slammed for my opinion.



I want to state that I do not adovcate abuse of anything, what I advocate is the government should not be making decisions for us.

Alcohol is legal because prohibition was a disaster. We probably could significantly reduce drinking and driving if car manufactureres would put breath analyzers in cars. I haven't looked for one, but if I did regularly go out drinking I would buy one since it would be good insurance against a DUI.

Sure teens smoke some weed and they find that the anti drug messages are propaganda. Well, if they lied about pot, they probably lied about Meth too.

Truthfully drug education is what we need, not bs propaganda that kids quickly figure out and then we have lost credibility.

As far as MARINOL, I have a friend who didn't want to smoke pot, she is on disablity and went for a MARINOL prescription. She got the prescription, but was told that her discounted monthly price would be 700 a month.

She was lilke you, very much against pot until she tried it and she found it is the best thing she ever used for her PARKINSON's disease.

Nothing in life is HARMLESS, everything has risks.

We don't live in an ideal world, there are problems, but if we had no problems and were content, we probably would still be in CAVES.:D

You focus in on children and one thing I have noticed is when someone wants to eliminate personal rights they always start off with the line that we have to do it to protect the children.

Of course we should protect the children. If someone was pushing drugs like meth on my children I would have no issue with executing them.

If I was sitting on a jury and a father had executed a drug dealer that was pushing drugs on children, I would refuse to convict that man, hell, I would give him a medal.

But that is not the issue here.

I will be blunt. I want to see Pot legalized not because I want people to get high, but because I want to see full blown industrial hemp in this country.

I want to see hemp replace oil in many of our products, I want to see ethanol/buthanol fuel to phase out gasoline so that we can eliminate oil imports and tell OPEC to go **** off.

I want to bankrupt the drug cartels.

I see ending the drug war as at least 100 billion dollar economic stimulus annually to our state.

The price of the drug war is destruction of our country and that is just too high a price.

Nicki

MasterYong
10-22-2009, 12:37 PM
That may well be. However, as it stands the only reason medical marijuana users are not in federal prison until a federal judge agrees, is because the feds choose not to prosecute, not because they can't prosecute.

Unless federal law is changed either though legislation or a court ruling, the same would be true if a state simply legalized pot.





Be careful what you wish for. It's CA says you can't have certain firearms, >10 rd mags, EBRs, NFA items, not the feds. So you are OK with that? State laws supercede federal laws?

Who the (#*$^&(#*&$#(*$&#) said I was OK with that? Why so hostile? In fact, you proved my point in the same way I was planning to. State law supersedes federal law. Example: CA gun laws. Case in point. I didn't say I liked it when it came to gun laws but otherwise yes, I believe that state laws should ALWAYS supersede federal laws. It's not my fault that the gun owning community that came before me was too impotent to act when gun control was being passed in this state. There's a lot more happening now in CA in the way of gun activism then the ever was 10 years ago.

itr1275
10-22-2009, 12:38 PM
I was responding to itr1275. Evidently he has some fear that regardless of the constitution or SCOTUS rulings Obama is going to let CA take away our guns any way.

I wouldn't say "fear", but concern. It's not like we don't already have the most restrictive laws and regulations in the country. Every year there is more BS on the books and the scary part is some of it gets through every single time. The public does not vote on it, nor do most of citizens even know it was changed.

[rant below - skip if you don't want to hear it] :)

If the bills were put to a public vote, I suspect that a lot less stuff would go through. I have faith in the people of a California, but not the people in Sacramento. Just about every one of them are a carreer politician and hasn't had a real job in decades. So if they don't vote for an anti-crime bill (gun bill), they will be unemployed. It usually comes out as a foot note on the campaign trail; "Voted for such and such..."

So, just to be clear, they don't want our guns, but they don't want us to be able to use them for any purpose. And if they could take them they would.

This Novemeber I'm not voting for anybody that is incumbant or currently holds different position in Sacramento or Washington. There are very few politicians, that I like or support and if they must fall with the rest that's ok with me, but it's time for a change. I don't care if they are Democrat, Republican, or Martian. I vote to fire them all.

wash
10-22-2009, 12:46 PM
Your concern is unfounded.

ATF only enforces federal laws, they aren't going to arrest CA DOJ if they decide to raid and shut down every FFL and start confiscating guns.

ATF is not stopping anything like that, they only make sure that FFL's are keeping good records, look for NFA violations and their alcohol and tobacco stuff.

Our legal system is what prevents the scenario you've described.

The Judges are not going to go for that, no matter how anti they are.

itr1275
10-22-2009, 12:56 PM
If everybody wasn't out to get me I would need to be paranoid. ;)

As you said the legal system is what prevents this. But if Mr. Obama decides it's not his problem then it's the state's problem. Then they get to make the rules.

I'm not saying it will get to the point of door to door raids, but what if they state shut down every FFL? What would the Feds do? Nothing.

States rights are great if you sane people running it.

dustoff31
10-22-2009, 1:00 PM
Who the (#*$^&(#*&$#(*$&#) said I was OK with that? Why so hostile? In fact, you proved my point in the same way I was planning to. State law supersedes federal law. Example: CA gun laws. Case in point. I didn't say I liked it when it came to gun laws but otherwise yes, I believe that state laws should ALWAYS supersede federal laws.

Me hostile? I'm not hostile at all. Merely pointing out that one can't have it both ways. Either state law supercedes federal law, or it does not. If a state can legalize pot and the feds have nothing to say about it, then that same state can pass whatever insane gun laws they want and the feds have nothing to say about it.

It's not my fault that the gun owning community that came before me was too impotent to act when gun control was being passed in this state. There's a lot more happening now in CA in the way of gun activism then the ever was 10 years ago.

I'm not sure what this has to do with anything in this thread.

wash
10-22-2009, 1:17 PM
If everybody wasn't out to get me I would need to be paranoid. ;)

As you said the legal system is what prevents this. But if Mr. Obama decides it's not his problem then it's the state's problem. Then they get to make the rules.

I'm not saying it will get to the point of door to door raids, but what if they state shut down every FFL? What would the Feds do? Nothing.

States rights are great if you sane people running it.
You don't understand, it's already not his problem.

Is your local FFL still open?

I guess the state didn't decide to take your guns away...

Meplat
10-22-2009, 8:42 PM
Thank you, you put it clearly and succinctly with few words.

Obama's backing off on federal enforcement related to medical marijuana is consistent with the Constitution, and happens to agree with Ron Paul's position (although not to the same degree). The federal government has no constitutional authority to regulate marijuana that is produced, sold and consumed entirely within a state's borders - the ability to regulate that is reserved to the states by the 10th amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

So, his position is to allow states to do what they wish.

2A is a different issue entirely. RKBA is an explicit right in the federal constitution. Incorporating it to the states via 14A prevents the states from doing as they wish and denying the right.

Meplat
10-22-2009, 8:47 PM
being illegal. In CA medical marijuana is legale.

I think it says something about the "drugs"When we fill out the forms to purchase a gun (4***?), there is a drug question. If you lie on there you just did a bad thing, maybe a felony.

So smoking weed and buying guns could still get you in trouble even if smoking weed is legal in CA.

It reminds me that they brought down Capone with tax laws. I wonder how many CA pot farmers will pay the federal marijuana taxes and income taxes? He never said he would keep the IRS out of CA.

Pvt. Cowboy
10-22-2009, 9:11 PM
Gray is right about Federal law and legalization of Pot in California will force a constitutional court showdown.
Nicki

In the old days, it was the Republicans who were all for States' rights.

Not by historical interpretation. State laws supersede federal laws. That's the only reason medical marijuana is possible in the first place.

... Either state law supercedes federal law, or it does not. If a state can legalize pot and the feds have nothing to say about it, then that same state can pass whatever insane gun laws they want and the feds have nothing to say about it.

Already been decided:

Gonzales v. Raich (previously Ashcroft v. Raich), 545 U.S. 1 (2005) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled on June 6, 2005 that under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, which allows the United States Congress "To regulate Commerce... among the several States," Congress may ban the use of cannabis even where states approve its use for medicinal purposes.

Liberals on the US Supreme Court prevailed in deciding that the Federal government had powers to regulate under the Commerce Clause, while the Conservative Originalists on the court dissented that the Federal government didn't:

Case opinions
Majority Stevens, joined by Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer
Concurrence Scalia
Dissent O'Connor, joined by Rehnquist (part I, II), Thomas (parts I, II)
Dissent Thomas

Read the dissents and weep:

Dissenting opinions

Justice O'Connor, dissenting, began her opinion by citing United States v. Lopez, which she followed with a reference to Justice Louis Brandeis's dissenting opinion in New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann:

“Federalism promotes innovation by allowing for the possibility that "a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country..."[8]”

O'Connor concluded:

“Relying on Congress’ abstract assertions, the Court has endorsed making it a federal crime to grow small amounts of marijuana in one’s own home for one’s own medicinal use. This overreaching stifles an express choice by some States, concerned for the lives and liberties of their people, to regulate medical marijuana differently. If I were a California citizen, I would not have voted for the medical marijuana ballot initiative; if I were a California legislator I would not have supported the Compassionate Use Act. But whatever the wisdom of California’s experiment with medical marijuana, the federalism principles that have driven our Commerce Clause cases require that room for experiment be protected in this case.”

Justice Thomas also wrote a separate dissent, stating in part:

“Respondent's local cultivation and consumption of marijuana is not "Commerce ... among the several States."

Certainly no evidence from the founding suggests that "commerce" included the mere possession of a good or some personal activity that did not involve trade or exchange for value. In the early days of the Republic, it would have been unthinkable that Congress could prohibit the local cultivation, possession, and consumption of marijuana. ”

and

“If the Federal Government can regulate growing a half-dozen cannabis plants for personal consumption (not because it is interstate commerce, but because it is inextricably bound up with interstate commerce), then Congress' Article I powers -- as expanded by the Necessary and Proper Clause -- have no meaningful limits. Whether Congress aims at the possession of drugs, guns, or any number of other items, it may continue to "appropria[te] state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce." ”

and further:

“If the majority is to be taken seriously, the Federal Government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 States. This makes a mockery of Madison's assurance to the people of New York that the "powers delegated" to the Federal Government are "few and defined", while those of the States are "numerous and indefinite."[9]

The outcome of Raich and the argument of her lousy hippie pony-tailed lawyers boned gun owners who had a victory in hand in the Stewart Ruling from the 9th Circuit Court, culminating in United States v. Stewart (2003) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Stewart_%282003%29). SCOTUS sent that case back down to the 9th for review highlighting their rotten decision in Raich.

If it weren't for that stupid pothead chick trying to do a damned illegal thing, we might have won that case in front of the US Supreme Court years ahead of Heller.

Once again for those of you thinking 'tl;dr': The liberals boned us. Now Obama is ignoring Raich by declaring that he won't use the Justice Dept to go after potheads. Fat lot of good that does gun owners now that the illicitly-smoking potheads lost their case in front of the US Supreme Court and law abiding gun owners are left holding the bag.

So no, I don't think there's a bloody thing to be gained by trying to link up RKBA rights with the marijuana smokers, the gays, or anything else. I think that you wild-eyed libertarians out there on CalGuns should clam up about it and focus purely on keeping the RKBA fight between the navigation beacons and not wander off into a head shop or a gay disco playing 'It's Raining Men'.

Also, maybe you 'big-L' registered Libertarians should prove that your silly little party of iconoclasts even has the power to get one of your own elected to the office of dogcatcher somewhere, seeing as it's going on 40 years of your party not having a blessed thing to show for itself.

Meplat
10-22-2009, 9:56 PM
If the leaders of normal want public support from Cal-guns they need to give public support to RKBA. The fact is that both groups think they stand to loose more support than they gain by supporting the other. Myself I just support freedom, including the freedom to fry your own brain cells if you want.

I have been watching this Merry Jane argument argument for fifty years now. From what I see. The only valid argument against pot is that it will cut into the available pool of competent worker bees. I myself would not do it for several reasons, the first of which is that it obviously compromises cognitive abilities long term. I can see this in my friends. But guess what. I raised two kids that had no drug problem by pointing that out. So, don't give me the "for the children" argument. Laws are no substitute for family guidance, I have fear for my grandchildren, but will not infringe on the liberties of my fellow citizens on the slight chance that laws will be more important to them than the council of those who changed their diapers.







Obama is reading the writing on the wall.

He wants big government, but in order to have that power, he must protect the "commerce clause" and the suppression of the 9th and 10th amenments at all costs.

The Politics of Pot will eventually bring on a "Commerce Clause" case that will also involve the 9th and 10th amendents and could significantly cut down on the power of the federal government over our lives.

Any politician who votes for the pending AB390 by default admits that prohibition is a failed policy. If prohibition of pot failed, how is it going to work with guns?

Since half of the gun crime in this country is either directly/indirectly related to the drug war, anything that would cripple the drug trade would probably lead to a reduction in gun related crime.

The issue for gun owners and pot smokers will be the following. Do you work together and each group has "their rights" or do you continue to support attacking each other and destroying the bill of rights.

BTW, I talked with leaders at NORML and key leaders privately are supporting our RKBA. On their end, we could work together.

Nicki

nicki
10-22-2009, 10:44 PM
The outcome of Raich and the argument of her lousy hippie pony-tailed lawyers boned gun owners who had a victory in hand in the Stewart Ruling from the 9th Circuit Court, culminating in United States v. Stewart (2003). SCOTUS sent that case back down to the 9th for review highlighting their rotten decision in Raich.

If it weren't for that stupid pothead chick trying to do a damned illegal thing, we might have won that case in front of the US Supreme Court years ahead of Heller.

Once again for those of you thinking 'tl;dr': The liberals boned us. Now Obama is ignoring Raich by declaring that he won't use the Justice Dept to go after potheads. Fat lot of good that does gun owners now that the illicitly-smoking potheads lost their case in front of the US Supreme Court and law abiding gun owners are left holding the bag.

So no, I don't think there's a bloody thing to be gained by trying to link up RKBA rights with the marijuana smokers, the gays, or anything else. I think that you wild-eyed libertarians out there on CalGuns should clam up about it and focus purely on keeping the RKBA fight between the navigation beacons and not wander off into a head shop or a gay disco playing 'It's Raining Men'.

Also, maybe you 'big-L' registered Libertarians should prove that your silly little party of iconoclasts even has the power to get one of your own elected to the office of dogcatcher somewhere, seeing as it's going on 40 years of your party not having a blessed thing to show for itself.


You know that it was a lawyer Robert Levy ,from the Cato Institute, a LIBERTARIAN THINK TANK that bankrolled the HELLER CASE.

Alan Gura LLP, the winning attorney is a pragmatic LIBERTARIAN.

Don Kilmer LLP, who is the most effective gun rights attorney here in California and the person you would want to call if your butt was in a sling has a nice long PONYTAIL.

Gene Hoffman, the chair of the Calguns foundation, the most effective grassroots gun rights group in the country is probably a pragmatic libertarian.

In short, it is the LIBERTARIAN minded folks who are the leaders of the gun rights movement and if it wasn't for them, Obama would right about now be collecting all of YOUR GUNS.

As far as Raich is concerned. She is a patient with MS and she started the case out of principle and it was NORML's first try using a commerce clause case argument for medical marijuana.

She stood up against what she felt was a unjust immoral law and engaged in peaceful disobedience. She has more BALLS than most of us on this forum because few of us would risk arrest or jailtime to further gun rights.

The reality is support for outright legalization of pot is growing and average non political folks think that the Raich decision is pure BS.

Combine that with the "Wickard case" and some of us can flip many liberals over to our view of the proper purpose of the commerce clause.

The Feds could have been reasonable with medical marijuana, but they have stonewalled now for since 1996 to the point that if the feds now said we will run independent studies on the medical uses of pot many Americans will now say **** you, you had a chance.

Current polls show 58 percent of Californians supporting legalization and nationwide the polls are now approaching 50 percent.

Alcohol prohibition had it's highest public support in 1932, but public support flipped and by 1934 it was gone and that required a constitutional amendment.

You couldn't have a better poster child to how EVIL the commerce clause is than to have a sick and crippled person denied the ablity to have personal medical choice.

The reality is the marijuania movement is learning from their loss in Raich and they will go at it again, just like the Gays did when they lost on a Sodomy case in the 1980's, they regrouped and came back again and they won with the Lawrence case in 2003.

With the makeup of the SCOTUS back at the time of the Stewart case, we would have LOST and it would have been a 6-3 loss.

Rather than having a second amendment victory, we would have had a significant second amendment loss and Heller may not have even been heard.

Rather than cursing "Raich", you should be thanking her.

Alan Gura LLP, the attorney who won the Heller case and is running the MacDonald case feels we can get everything right now except full auto, if Heller had been a full auto case, the ruling would have been 5-4 against us.

Kennedy and O'Connor would have voted against Stewart because the Stewart case involved homemade full auto weapons.

Historically in America third parties are where new ideas flourish and usually the major parties adopt anything that is getting traction.

Ron Paul who no one wanted to associate with last year is now getting huge numbers of sponsors to audit the Fed.

Ron Paul is reaching across the Political spectrum and most of the people in his movement are the young people.

Peace, Prosperity and Freedom are popular values and we are going to see growing shifts toward libertarian type candidates over the next 10 years.

The reality is we Americans have more in common that we do in differences, focusing in on our differences is what will make us ineffective.

Both Pot laws and Gun laws share the same sordid history of racist roots and abusing the taxing powers of the US Government to use the tax system to directly subvert rights.

The original intent of the tax system was to raise money to fund legitimate government services, not to be used to strip us of fundamental rights.

If you want to protect the second amendment, you have to be willing to protect the rest of the bill of rights.

All of us are minorities in one way or another and if you want to secure your rights, the last thing you should be doing is supporting violations of your neighbors rights.

The bill of rights is a package deal. When someone loses at the SCOTUS, rather than *****ing that they lost, what we should be doing is seeing why they lost and if they are promoting freedom, regroup and try again.

In finishing, this is a diverse board and as such, we all need to be respectful to each other.

Nicki

a1c
10-22-2009, 11:01 PM
Nicki, I couldn't agree with you more. Very nicely put!

nicki
10-22-2009, 11:41 PM
If the leaders of normal want public support from Cal-guns they need to give public support to RKBA. The fact is that both groups think they stand to loose more support than they gain by supporting the other. Myself I just support freedom, including the freedom to fry your own brain cells if you want.



Actually I have been working behind the scenes building bridges and we are not that far off on this one.

I am sure others have as well, but it takes time.

We have a split in the gun community between conservatives and libertarians, they have a split in their group between liberals and libertarians.

It will take work, but conservative/liberal alliances have been growing when it comes to protecting the bill of rights.

Case in point, Gun Owners of America and the ACLU have been setting aside differences and worked together to stop some really bad stuff that former AG Alberto Gonzalez tried to do.

Nicki

Mulay El Raisuli
10-23-2009, 7:09 AM
Niki I agree in theory that no one should be able to tell us what we can do to our own bodies but now I will play devils advocate. We all know that if one drinks too much and gets behind the wheel of a car is a dangerous thing. There are also drugs out there that do major damage to ones body. I watched teens that had everything going for them ruin their lives with drugs and alcohol when I worked in juvenile probation. Most of those teens started out smoking a little weed and graduated to much worse. I have also watched some of my daughters friends go down that same path. So to me its not all that harmless, and I am sure that I will get slammed for my opinion.


It isn't that I think you're wrong about the effects of weed as a 'gateway' drug. It isn't that I think weed is harmless. All those arguments don't mean anything to me. My whole problem with the 'drug war' is that it ain't my job to prevent stupid people from doing stupid things to themselves. Coupled with the realization that banning weed has the same effect that banning booze did; nothing good with a whole lot of bad. IE; Anyone who wants weed can get it, while the money generated from this fuels the cartels.

The Raisuli

FreedomIsNotFree
10-23-2009, 9:57 AM
Calling anyone that uses cannabis a "pot head" is tantamount to calling anyone that drinks alcohol a "drunk". Is that truly your position? If so, you're short sighted. If not, you're a hypocrite.

I don't believe the linking of the two issues is beneficial for our cause, but you would have to be blind to not see the parallels. It's all about control by the nanny state thinking they know whats best and safe for you.

With freedom comes responsibility.

Now lets delve in to the hypocrisy of the Federal government. They say cannabis has no medicinal properties yet they approve Marinol which is a synthetic form of THC, the active component in cannabis. I guess its only useful if the pharmaceutical companies can make a profit.

You can be 100% against cannabis, that is your right, but you should be intellectually honest enough to call the feds out on their hypocritical position on the issue.

MasterYong
10-23-2009, 10:41 AM
Calling anyone that uses cannabis a "pot head" is tantamount to calling anyone that drinks alcohol a "drunk". Is that truly your position? If so, you're short sighted. If not, you're a hypocrite.

I don't believe the linking of the two issues is beneficial for our cause, but you would have to be blind to not see the parallels. It's all about control by the nanny state thinking they know whats best and safe for you.

With freedom comes responsibility.

Now lets delve in to the hypocrisy of the Federal government. They say cannabis has no medicinal properties yet they approve Marinol which is a synthetic form of THC, the active component in cannabis. I guess its only useful if the pharmaceutical companies can make a profit.

You can be 100% against cannabis, that is your right, but you should be intellectually honest enough to call the feds out on their hypocritical position on the issue.

VERY well said.

I would also go so far as to compare calling everyone that uses marijuana a pothead to calling everyone that owns a gun a "gun nut," "extremist," or "redneck."

DDRH
10-23-2009, 11:13 AM
Calling anyone that uses cannabis a "pot head" is tantamount to calling anyone that drinks alcohol a "drunk". Is that truly your position? If so, you're short sighted. If not, you're a hypocrite.

I don't believe the linking of the two issues is beneficial for our cause, but you would have to be blind to not see the parallels. It's all about control by the nanny state thinking they know whats best and safe for you.

With freedom comes responsibility.

Now lets delve in to the hypocrisy of the Federal government. They say cannabis has no medicinal properties yet they approve Marinol which is a synthetic form of THC, the active component in cannabis. I guess its only useful if the pharmaceutical companies can make a profit.

You can be 100% against cannabis, that is your right, but you should be intellectually honest enough to call the feds out on their hypocritical position on the issue.

+1

i've never met a violent pothead, but plenty of drunks. never hear of any potheads causing car accidents, but plenty of drunks too. :rolleyes:

ship12
10-23-2009, 11:24 AM
Now lets delve in to the hypocrisy of the Federal government. They say cannabis has no medicinal properties yet they approve Marinol which is a synthetic form of THC, the active component in cannabis. I guess its only useful if the pharmaceutical companies can make a profit.

They also ruled Heroin has no medicinal value, which is also clearly false. Heroin, can be used instead of morphine, and with a lower, cheaper dose. GHB is also banned, yet available as Xyrem. Drug laws are a murky issue, the general rule is that drugs are now banned until proven safe. Theres other examples like MDMA, which is a banned schedule 1 drug (IE, no accepted medical use in the US) yet its used to treat PTSD.

Most of the schedule 1 drugs, have a valid medical use, cannibis is hardly the exception. That does not make them safe, so it's in the public interest to have them regulated. That being said, drug laws certainly need to be revised, I don't think cannibis and a few other drugs belong on that list. Lol, even heroin (used as diamorphine in the UK) and cocaine are medically used, while other less addictive or toxic drugs are banned.

Brujo
10-23-2009, 11:52 AM
Let me say it again the core issue here whether it's gun laws or drug laws is freedom. Since this is mostly a conservative leaning website, I'd like everybody here to think about how you vote next time a proposition such as prop 8 comes up.

Now I for one don't give a **** if gay people marry, it has nothing to do with me, and I think regulating who can throw a party is silly at best. But I damn well voted no on 8 because I saw it as a freedom issue, just like drug laws and just like gun laws.

I know lots of folks who do drugs, most are scared of my guns. When you put the argument in terms of freedom most come around to see my side. Unfortunately this argument tends not to work on the conservative side in my experience. Why is that?

To me freedom is freedom, if your not hurting anybody but your self what the business is it of ours or the governments?

jah191
10-23-2009, 12:21 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich

DDRH
10-23-2009, 12:26 PM
Let me say it again the core issue here whether it's gun laws or drug laws is freedom. Since this is mostly a conservative leaning website, I'd like everybody here to think about how you vote next time a proposition such as prop 8 comes up.

Now I for one don't give a **** if gay people marry, it has nothing to do with me, and I think regulating who can throw a party is silly at best. But I damn well voted no on 8 because I saw it as a freedom issue, just like drug laws and just like gun laws.

I know lots of folks who do drugs, most are scared of my guns. When you put the argument in terms of freedom most come around to see my side. Unfortunately this argument tends not to work on the conservative side in my experience. Why is that?

To me freedom is freedom, if your not hurting anybody but your self what the business is it of ours or the governments?

+1, they shouldn't call it marriage, might confuse people...maybe a union. since there IS a difference. but JMHO

JAYSONE
10-23-2009, 1:33 PM
Let me say it again the core issue here whether it's gun laws or drug laws is freedom. Since this is mostly a conservative leaning website, I'd like everybody here to think about how you vote next time a proposition such as prop 8 comes up.

Now I for one don't give a **** if gay people marry, it has nothing to do with me, and I think regulating who can throw a party is silly at best. But I damn well voted no on 8 because I saw it as a freedom issue, just like drug laws and just like gun laws.

I know lots of folks who do drugs, most are scared of my guns. When you put the argument in terms of freedom most come around to see my side. Unfortunately this argument tends not to work on the conservative side in my experience. Why is that?

To me freedom is freedom, if your not hurting anybody but your self what the business is it of ours or the governments?

+1...leave judgment to the "Almighty."

I would never force someone to adhere to my beliefs/opinions on issues, only to respect it as my own and my choice.

Throughout history it's always been the people in power trying to force their opinions/ways on others and it's only in retrospect many decades later that people see the "light". Yet again, history repeats itself...Same story, different topic. Mankind will never learn.

Meplat
10-23-2009, 2:12 PM
VERY well said.

I would also go so far as to compare calling everyone that uses marijuana a pothead to calling everyone that owns a gun a "gun nut," "extremist," or "redneck."

I wonder if marijuana users are sa proud of being called pot heads as I am of being called an extremist, redneck, gun nut?:p

MasterYong
10-23-2009, 2:23 PM
I wonder if marijuana users are sa proud of being called pot heads as I am of being called an extremist, redneck, gun nut?:p

I once had a friend who in all seriousness would state: "I'm NOT a pothead!!! I'm a LOADY. Potheads are lazy, smelly, jobless losers- I'm just a regular guy that gets ripped all the time! You call me a pothead again and we're gonna have to have a REAL serious conversation!"

He was a character for sure.