Taboo subject -- gun-owning pot-smokers?

[Ryan in the House]

And that my friends, is the sad result of Civics education in our land today.

Nice way to chop up my post in order to completely change the way I am percieved, Michael Moore.

 

[thefitzvh]

Nice way to chop up my post in order to completely change the way I am percieved, Michael Moore.

Great way to pick and choose what parts of the constitution to abide by, Democrat.

 

[Ryan in the House]

Great way to pick and choose what parts of the constitution to abide by, Democrat.

"Democrat" is an insult? Why not call me a poop face? It'd do just as good. For your information, I lean to the Conservative side. I'd actually be considered as a Republican, since I lean so much to the right... or a Conservative Democrat. It's up to you to decide if it's more important to be associated with a political affiliation, or my a political idea.

I dont "pick and choose" what parts of the Constitution to abide by. I interpret it differently that you. The Constitution legalizes everything under the great blue sky as long as it does not harm or repress anyone else. It does not take into consideration that people might not want to see drunken fools barfing on our sidewalks. It does not take into consideration that people dont want their kids to see a flock of exhibitionists jiggling their way along our streets and sidewalks. It does not take into consideration that the majority should have a hand in how they want to be governed.

Majority rules.

In other words... welcome to the United States of America.

 

[joab]

Ryan
America is NOT a democracy. It never has been, it never was intended to be.
The idea was considered and rejected by the Framers.

The Constitution is not the law that we live by it is the law that the goverment must abide by.
A list of powers that we the people allow the goverment.

Barfing up baloney sandwichs in public is already against the law, being mind altered in public or while driving is already against the law. How does adding another substance to this list of banned public activities affect the morality of the country or the cleanliness of our park sidewalks, or the quality of your life liberty and pursuit of happiness.

The only problem I see with legalization would be that non users are subjected to second hand smoke. Sure, one could move away, but there is always that one uncurteous SOB that insists on firing one up right in front of your children. I definitely do not want my children nor myself involuntarily exposed to marijuana use by second hand smoke.

Now that is a good point.as it effects the health a welfare of the public directly and without their consent

 

[goon]

Majority rules.

In other words... welcome to the United States of America.

Hypothetical situation.
You have one 28 year old woman surrounded by 8 convicted rapists. No doubt that she is not a member of the majority. Does that mean that they can assault her because they are the majority and the majority rules?

If you have 10 KKK members and one black guy, is it OK for the KKK to hang said black guy? After all, they are the majority.

 

[kfranz]

It has already been covered, but for reinforcement......The Constitution legalizes nothing, it merely establishes the form and responsibilities of the national government.....

 

[Sindawe]

Ryan in the house said:

I dont "pick and choose" what parts of the Constitution to abide by. I interpret it differently that you. The Constitution legalizes everything under the great blue sky as long as it does not harm or repress anyone else. It does not take into consideration that people might not want to see drunken fools barfing on our sidewalks. It does not take into consideration that people dont want their kids to see a flock of exhibitionists jiggling their way along our streets and sidewalks. It does not take into consideration that the majority should have a hand in how they want to be governed. Majority rules.

So then, if the majority of us here at THR.Org decided to come over for a visit, take you out of your home, cover you with thousand of small cuts and honey, then stake you out over a fire-ant colony, you'd be OK with that?

Ryan, based on your posts here, it looks to me (and apparently several others here) that you have a limited and flawed understanding of our system of government and its intent as envisioned by the men who created it.

As for compromising, that also comes to play with guns. Someone just reading the Constitution could think "Right to keep and bear arms. Got it. I'll buy a fully operational AK-47 first thing in the morning." But, laws created after the Constitution are added as the situations arise, and as the issues become popular.

That hypothetical person would be absolutely correct. "...shall not be infringed." means just that. No restrictions, means tests, or other such dren. Laws in place to the contrary are null and void, a fact recognized by the Supreme Court until early in the last century.

 

[Linux&Gun Guy]

HUGE DISCLAIMER FOR MR.MOD and COPPERS
I have never smoked in my life; in fact I don't even know what weed looks like - this is the product of a dream.



I think 'Ryan" just has an unnatural fear of the herb.

Let me ask you a question Ryan:

How am I hurting anyone when I take a few rips from the old glass on glass? The weed around here is grown here so no terrorism crap, and my dealer is a good guy and is not some gangster type.

Perhaps I am lowering the quality of the air?

rock jock: Growing is good and I think most people would grow if it was legal but look at the harsh laws for growing. Its not worth it at the present time.

 

[thefitzvh]

Majority rules.

*buzzer* Wrong again, man. The purpose of establishing a republic is to prevent "tyranny of the majority." Pure democracies have been horrid failures. It's been said that democracy is 3 wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. A constitutional republic is an armed sheep contesting that vote.

The point is: acting like a fool in public is already illegal. I've had the cops come to my bar and arrest people causing trouble, and that's what they were charged with, "Public intoxication." It's a catch-all. I think the anti-weed propaganda has affected you strongly.

Bottom line is: if you're not hurting anyone but yourself, sitting around gettin stoned with some buddies, the federales have no business interfering.

James

 

[Brian Dale]

Ryan,

"Democrat" is an insult? Why not call me a poop face?

Now you're attacking a logical fallacy. Good. I want to acknowledge that.

It's up to you to decide if it's more important to be associated with a political affiliation or a political idea.

I agree. Please take this concept and expand it.

 

[White Horseradish]

Why do I think consumption of intoxicating substances is immoral? I think of the effects. It puts them in a position where their behavior and judgement is altered, and where they are at a danger to not only themselves, but a danger to people around them. You smoke weed and drive, you drink beer you drive, you're endangering people around you.

So if I do not own a car, is it ok for me to get high? Altered judgement and behavior in and of themselves are rather innocuous.

Being high is NOT a positive image, I hope you know. It has never been a positive image; not in society's eye.

I never said it is. I never said it was. What's image got to do with anything?

Why dont you take a poll, and see how many responsible adults want to take their kids to parks where people are hitting up joints and getting high, or taking them to places where people are so drunk they're pissing their pants and vomiting all over the place.

Well, for one, I wouldn't do it because it would provide no useful information.

Any responsible parent, and I'm not talking about parents who smokes weed with their 15 year old kid, would agree that they dont want those images to become etched into their child's mind as a prominent and acceptable part of our society.

How is an image of a person smoking a joint different from an image of a person smoking tobacco? Is the simple fact of having a small burning piece of paper in one's hand so awful?

You might think my idea of what is appealing and not is wrong. You might think that a bunch of high wandering fools is a good thing to invision in America; or you might not care. You might not care if your children see drunks in public parks who are barfing up their balogne sandwiches all over the ground. But I do.

Well, first of all, I think your idea of how to spell bologna is wrong. I also do not understand why you keep bringing up barfing drunks. Consumption of alcohol does not automatically cause vomiting. Supposing my children do happen to see a vomiting drunk, I would think this would a be quite valuable as an illustration of what can happen if you are not careful in your alcohol use.

I don't look at guns the same way I look at judgement-impeding drugs (that can and often times lead to accidents) or alcohol. Guns exist to keep the peace (and yes, they're around to kill, but I won't protest that), and they exist for defense, and even sport. Marijuana and alcohol are for social enjoyment.

Guns can be used for social enjoyment as well. Is there something wrong with enjoyment?

The only similarities I see is that misusing them is a crime, just as misusing guns is a crime.

Well, you hit the nail on the head there. It's the MISuse that is the problem, not use per se.

It's unappealing when people misuse things like that, and especially when it has an impact on society.

What is this fixation on appeal and image that you have? Life ain't pretty. Deal with it. This is the real world, not Disneyworld.

You might not think it does, but just ask parents what they want their kids to see in a park. Ask them if they mind watching a bunch of drunken idiots falling all over the place, making loud and obscene noises. Ask them if they want their kids to experience a group of high pot-smokers first hand. If the majority of the parents say "No... I don't want my kid to see any of that." then you KNOW this kind of thing has an impact on society. It's not just Liberals either; go ahead and ask the Conservative parents. Ask ANY parent, regardless of their political bias.

You have my answer as a parent above. I have already demonstrated that the majority opinion is not always right in a previous post.

Do you all just want to argue?

No. We want to make you think.

For Christ's sake!

It is rather ironic for one so concerned with morals to speak Lord's name in vain.

Does that mean we should be expected to respect the rights of those who walk around naked? I don't want to see people expressing their "persuit of happiness" by letting it all hang out.

Then don't look. You have the freedom to turn your head.

I dont "pick and choose" what parts of the Constitution to abide by. I interpret it differently that you. The Constitution legalizes everything under the great blue sky as long as it does not harm or repress anyone else. It does not take into consideration that people might not want to see drunken fools barfing on our sidewalks. It does not take into consideration that people dont want their kids to see a flock of exhibitionists jiggling their way along our streets and sidewalks. It does not take into consideration that the majority should have a hand in how they want to be governed.

Exactly. Wecome to the US of A, which is not now and never has been a Democracy. You got something against the Constitution? Cause, you know, I have sworn to defend it from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

 

[Desert Dog]

Ryan in the house,

There must be some interesting parks where you live...

In my part of the country, it is illegal to drink alcohol in a public park...

 

[Byron Quick]

IMO, when you allow yourself to become inebrated, you are willingly giving up the right for self defense (along with the priviledge to drive a vehicle). Not because of the law, but because you have hindered your judgement, weakened your physical abilities to be aware of your surroundings (sight, sound, attention to detail, etc) and reduced your ability to react to threats. To put it simply, armed or not, you make yourself vulnerable to attack and are just relying on luck to keep yourself out of trouble.

When I become inebrieated then I am in one of two places: either in my own home or in the home of extremely trusted friends. Georgia law states that lethal force can be used against anyone who: 1)forcibly enters a home. 2) does not live in that home. and 3) the resident believes that lethal force is necessary to prevent the commission of more felonies.


I will enforce that law.

If you think I've given up my right of self-defense....put your premise to the test. You probably won't like the results.


I don't smoke pot. I'm a registered nurse. The possible penalties are too grim. I do drink. At home or in the homes of trusted friends. I do not drive afterwards. If you think I've given up my right to self defense...try me.

 

[Steelcore]

So long as the person filling out the 4473 is not high or in posession of pot,they are not commiting perjury when they answer *no* to that question.



*Pot same as Alcohol' riiiight. Nevermind those pesky LAWS.

Nevermind the arguments surrounding Pot - how do pot users fill out a 4473, is what I want to know. They are obviously comitting a Felony in lying on the form.*

 

[WEPS]

here is why i have a problem with it. it is illegal and to get it means you have to associate yourself with some rotten apples. i don't know about you but i try not to be friends with drug dealers/users and no matter how some try to slice or justify it, marijuana is a drug and it is illegal. this isn't comming from a goody two shoe either. i smoked my fair share and then some in highschool. it did nothing for me except lower my grades, self esteem and motivation. i dislike drugs and the people who abuse them, i have no sympathy for them or there cause.

 

[WEPS]

you know i have to agree with what others said. drinking and drugs hinder your judgement and diminish your ability to defend yourself. just 2 drinks knocks 1/2 a second of your reaction time. anybody who thinks that they can drink/use and still use a gun is asking for trouble. those of you who get defensive about it are just conveying the obvious. anything that requires solid judgement or fine motor skills should not be used or operated when alchohol or drugs are involved.

 

[goon]

i dislike drugs and the people who abuse them, i have no sympathy for them or there cause.

I dislike cigarettes.
I also find the idea of homosexual activities between two men to be especially disgusting.

However, as long as someone's participation in those activities does no harm to me, it is absolutely none of my business.

I don't support drug use and I don't feel sorry for drug users.
I do feel that the choice should be their choice and not the government's choice.

 

[WEPS]

Goon.

when somebody kills your kid on the way home from school because he was high/drunk and didn't see him, you will wish you would have made it your buisiness. oh what am i saying your right, who cares if someone dies every 6 sec over a drunk driver, it doesn't affect us so it's none of our concern. well i have a news flash for you Goon, safety is everybodies concern not just the peace officers.

 

[Ryan in the House]

Seems the best you guys are doing is either a) attacking my arguments as uneducated and using the popular opinion here to "prove it" (funny how you all say "Popular opinion is not always right." but then use that same concept to call me ignorant), or b) throwing my arguments out of proportion.

I'll do my best to answer:

You have one 28 year old woman surrounded by 8 convicted rapists. No doubt that she is not a member of the majority. Does that mean that they can assault her because they are the majority and the majority rules?

If you have 10 KKK members and one black guy, is it OK for the KKK to hang said black guy? After all, they are the majority.

Let's see... these involve murdering or assaulting a person. The person has a right to be safe. The innocent people living does not infringe the rights of others. However, if you want to protect (for instance) exhibitionists who flash their nude bodies over town because the "Constitution protects it" you are ultimately infringing the rights of others, because they have a right NOT to see that. They have a right to NOT see drug users getting high in their public parks. They have a right to NOT see naked bodies walking up and down the street. They have the right to be safe, and unharmed, as well. I'm not harming anyone by compromising and telling them to keep their nudity and pot inside the house; and you'd be hard pressed to find any proof that I am.

America is NOT a democracy. It never has been, it never was intended to be.
The idea was considered and rejected by the Framers.

Then what it is? CIA World Factbook classifies America as a "Constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition." If the Framers had complete control of how our country was to be run or the next 250 years, then there'd be nudists showing their bodies all over our streets, because that would be granted to them, no holds barred, no compromise. The public has a tendency (and a right) to step in and say they do not want to see that, where as only a very small majority said "It's part of our rights!" Any illusion that the gov't was going to be ultimately controlled and regulated by the Constitution was dismissed when Lincoln gave the Gettysburg Address, "...that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." The position has been held, accepted, and expected ever since.

It is rather ironic for one so concerned with morals to speak Lord's name in vain.

Why? Because moral and religion is tied? People who are agnostic have no morals?

Well, for one, I wouldn't do it because it would provide no useful information.

The opinion of the people you are governing is not useful information? If your guns were banned, and government asked the people "Do you want your guns to stay banned?" I am sure that you would want YOUR voice to be heard, and recognized by the government.

Well, first of all, I think your idea of how to spell bologna is wrong. I also do not understand why you keep bringing up barfing drunks. Consumption of alcohol does not automatically cause vomiting. Supposing my children do happen to see a vomiting drunk, I would think this would a be quite valuable as an illustration of what can happen if you are not careful in your alcohol use.

Oh no, the mispelling of bologna totally voids every argument I've presented so far. I'm going to join the "CONSTITUTIONALISTS FOR THE CORRECT SPELLING OF BOLOGNA MOVEMENT" party to see the error of my ways!

Ok, how about the drunks that don't vomit? Are they more acceptable... as long as they're not excreting bodily fluids? Not to me.

Guns can be used for social enjoyment as well. Is there something wrong with enjoyment?

My guns and your guns do not impose themselves upon others. Then again, you also said "If you dont want to see people nude, then turn your head." so your idea and my idea of imposing are clearly different.

 

[WEPS]

you guy's crack me up. i would like to make a comment but it would be an uneducational one seeing how im not quite as familiar with the constituation as some of you claim to be. everybody wants to be the expert. it's quite simple really, wrong is wrong. if the city,county state or federal goverment say you can't smoke then you can't smoke. if you can't drink and drive then you can't drink and drive. there is no grey area here. everybody was born with a sense of what is right and wrong. you can't mix up canon law with comon law or criminal law. everybody knows murder,rape and stealing are wrong. nobody had to tell you that was against the law. throwing out the lame excuse that people should be left up to their own judgement is ludacris, people are stupid and don't always know what is best for them. saying i don't care if this guy does drugs because it doesn't affect me is also idiotic, because it does affect you. maybe not directly but it indirectly affects us all.

 

[WEPS]

oops! constitution

 

[Ryan in the House]

if the city,county state or federal goverment say you can't smoke then you can't smoke. if you can't drink and drive then you can't drink and drive.

Yeah, I really think it's a question of how the states want themselves to be governed, and not so much a question of how the Constitution will govern everybody the same way without any leniency.

I never said allow people to govern themselves, but they should have a hand if they think something needs to be changed.

 

[wasrjoe]

If the Framers had complete control of how our country was to be run or the next 250 years, then there'd be nudists showing their bodies all over our streets, because that would be granted to them, no holds barred, no compromise. The public has a tendency (and a right) to step in and say they do not want to see that, where as only a very small majority said "It's part of our rights!" Any illusion that the gov't was going to be ultimately controlled and regulated by the Constitution was dismissed when Lincoln gave the Gettysburg Address, "...that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." The position has been held, accepted, and expected ever since.

Wait wait wait, so you're trying to pass off the argument that the Constitution is null and void? Ok, well, I'm not going to even go near that right now.

it's quite simple really, wrong is wrong.

So basically your whole argument is that we should always follow the government, even when our freedom is restricted and said freedom harms no one? And that this is true because... it's true?

 

[wasrjoe]

I never said allow people to govern themselves, but they should have a hand if they think something needs to be changed.

So, you would be OK with the government imposing strict laws similair to those in Islamo-fascist countries banning "unmodest" dress and requiring all females to wear girkas? (spelling?)

 

[WEPS]

city,county and state laws can be more strict then federal laws just not more lenient provided it doesn't trample your constitutional rights.