America's Gun Violence

ponytd

Halifax2TheMax said:

Whats the appropriate penalty here?:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/mom-arrested-after-3-year-old-shoots-2-year-old-brother/

She goes to jail for a very, very long time.

PJ_Soul

Halifax2TheMax said:

Whats the appropriate penalty here?:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/mom-arrested-after-3-year-old-shoots-2-year-old-brother/

Whatever the maximum penalty is for "felony child abuse resulting in serious bodily injury" i guess. I hope that involves prison time, if only to get her away from her kids for as long as possible. Aside from the gun thing, they way her daughter talks about her suggests that she is a horrible mother in general.

dudeman

ponytd said:

dudeman said:

I wouldn't have a problem with alcoholism being addressed with regard to guns. If someone is dependent on any mood altering substance, they probably shouldn't be armed. 

I'd like all sales to go through an FFL with a $10.00 cap on the transfer fee. (Here is how you get Universal Background checks without the loopholes and bullshit).

Proof of training and proficiency requirements. 

Drug convictions, even misdemeanors should preclude one from owning firearms. 

If these additions, (as well as enforcing existing laws), could be made without legislators pushing agendas and politicizing the issue further, it is my opinion that we could keep guns out the hands those most likely to commit crimes with them. 

I'd agree with most of those. But let's say, you get busted with a couple of joints and get just a misdemeanor. Should you never be able to buy a gun? I don't know too many people who smoke pot who would go on a shooting rampage. I guess it comes down to, do you make broad rules or lots of specific ones?

Getting busted with pot and a misdemeanor charge is really not a big deal, IMO. Like you said, the average pot smoker is not likely to toke up and go on a shooting rampage.  However, it speaks to one's willingness to follow the law and not indulge in criminal activity. If marijuana was decriminalized at the federal level, I would have no issues with it.

As it stands now, pot smokers disregard the law and do what they want anyway. That's not a character trait that encourages compliance with other laws that they might not agree with. That's not necessarily the type of people that should be running around with guns, IMO.

jeffbr

dudeman said:

ponytd said:

dudeman said:

I wouldn't have a problem with alcoholism being addressed with regard to guns. If someone is dependent on any mood altering substance, they probably shouldn't be armed. 

I'd like all sales to go through an FFL with a $10.00 cap on the transfer fee. (Here is how you get Universal Background checks without the loopholes and bullshit).

Proof of training and proficiency requirements. 

Drug convictions, even misdemeanors should preclude one from owning firearms. 

If these additions, (as well as enforcing existing laws), could be made without legislators pushing agendas and politicizing the issue further, it is my opinion that we could keep guns out the hands those most likely to commit crimes with them. 

I'd agree with most of those. But let's say, you get busted with a couple of joints and get just a misdemeanor. Should you never be able to buy a gun? I don't know too many people who smoke pot who would go on a shooting rampage. I guess it comes down to, do you make broad rules or lots of specific ones?

Getting busted with pot and a misdemeanor charge is really not a big deal, IMO. Like you said, the average pot smoker is not likely to toke up and go on a shooting rampage.  However, it speaks to one's willingness to follow the law and not indulge in criminal activity. If marijuana was decriminalized at the federal level, I would have no issues with it.

As it stands now, pot smokers disregard the law and do what they want anyway. That's not a character trait that encourages compliance with other laws that they might not agree with. That's not necessarily the type of people that should be running around with guns, IMO.

Well, your first sentence of your second paragraph is a complete misrepresentation of pot smokers, especially those in legal states, and it is obnoxious, judgmental bullshit as well. Prior to the beginning of this year, before the assholes in the ATFE added the warning to question 11e on the 4473 form, there was no issue or confusion about the question. For people living in states where MJ is legal, they didn't consider themselves users of unlawful drugs. Now, of course, they either are denied a firearm for being truthful, or simply lie. Most simply lie. It sounds like you are embracing a dying opinion about pot, and its users. You seem to get awfully offended when gun owners are lumped together in a bad light, yet feel compelled to do the same to users of a substance which is legal in a quickly growing number of states. You and the feds need to join us in the 21st century.

dudeman

I should clarify since I seem to have offended you. I have no issues with marijuana or pot smokers. In fact, I think it should be legalized in all 50 states. There are a lot of people currently incarcerated for nothing more than marijuana related, non violent crimes. That should change. 

But, since it is not legal at the federal level as of right now, marijuana growers, dealers and users are breaking the law. If it's legal in your state, that's great.

Now, considering the serious and often times fatal consequences of gun ownership, I don't think throwing mind altering drugs on top is a good idea. 

If you want to smoke pot...fine. If you want to own guns......fine. I just think people should choose one or the other until the day that marijuana is legal. 

oftenreading

The facts are clear as day regarding what actually kills Americans in massive  numbers.

Hint - it isn't Islamic terrorists.

I'll just quote one paragraph (emphasis mine):

This is what a huge problem Islamic terrorism is for us in the United States. According to the a study by the New America Foundation, since 2002 there have been 10 attacks by Islamist terrorists on American soil. A total of 13 individuals carried out those 10 attacks. Eight of them were born here, making them American citizens; five were born elsewhere but were in this country as legal residents. According to the same study, during the same time, there were 390 acts of domestic terror in this country. Dylan Roof”s killing nine people in a church in South Carolina was one. James Earl Holmes’ shooting up a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, killing 12 and wounding 70 was another.

Okay, this is also a good part too:

....an average of six people a year have been killed by American-born Islamic terrorists over the last 15 years. Foreign-born terrorists have killed an average of one person a year in this country during the same time. According to the same study, an average of 21 people a year have been accidentally killed by very young children using their parents’ guns.

Are we going to start a War on Terr-ible Twos?


http://www.salon.com/2017/06/07/trump-tweets-while-people-die/

Halifax2TheMax

oftenreading said:

The facts are clear as day regarding what actually kills Americans in massive  numbers.

Hint - it isn't Islamic terrorists.

I'll just quote one paragraph (emphasis mine):

This is what a huge problem Islamic terrorism is for us in the United States. According to the a study by the New America Foundation, since 2002 there have been 10 attacks by Islamist terrorists on American soil. A total of 13 individuals carried out those 10 attacks. Eight of them were born here, making them American citizens; five were born elsewhere but were in this country as legal residents. According to the same study, during the same time, there were 390 acts of domestic terror in this country. Dylan Roof”s killing nine people in a church in South Carolina was one. James Earl Holmes’ shooting up a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, killing 12 and wounding 70 was another.

Okay, this is also a good part too:

....an average of six people a year have been killed by American-born Islamic terrorists over the last 15 years. Foreign-born terrorists have killed an average of one person a year in this country during the same time. According to the same study, an average of 21 people a year have been accidentally killed by very young children using their parents’ guns.

Are we going to start a War on Terr-ible Twos?


http://www.salon.com/2017/06/07/trump-tweets-while-people-die/

Senator Tom "I'm a Warrior, Hear Me Roar" Cotton supports all manner of that specific terrorism by opposing banning folks on the no fly list from buying fire arms. Making America Great Again before it was a campaign slogan.

unsung

Cotton is an idiot.  Anyone that supports a gun ban on a citizen because of a do not fly list is an idiot as well.

jeffbr

dudeman said:

I should clarify since I seem to have offended you. I have no issues with marijuana or pot smokers. In fact, I think it should be legalized in all 50 states. There are a lot of people currently incarcerated for nothing more than marijuana related, non violent crimes. That should change. 

But, since it is not legal at the federal level as of right now, marijuana growers, dealers and users are breaking the law. If it's legal in your state, that's great.

Now, considering the serious and often times fatal consequences of gun ownership, I don't think throwing mind altering drugs on top is a good idea. 

If you want to smoke pot...fine. If you want to own guns......fine. I just think people should choose one or the other until the day that marijuana is legal. 

I completely agree with the bolded part. My issue is that this statement should go way beyond pot or "illegal" drugs. Mind altering can and does include alcohol and prescription meds. Many meds come with a warning about not operating heavy machinery. If you shouldn't be operating heavy equipment, you sure as hell shouldn't be carrying a loaded weapon. So if one is going to deny pot smokers the ability to purchase firearms, that should extend to beer drinkers, people on anti-depressants, people on pain killers, people on high-blood pressure medication, people on sleeping meds, etc... I smoke pot daily. But I only smoke pot at night, when I'm in for the evening and won't be driving. I could just as easily have a beer or a whiskey instead. There isn't any difference between the way I use my drug of choice and the way many people have a beer in the evening. But for some reason you have decided that my use of pot is more of a danger than Billy Bob's nightly six pack. That's where I take issue with your generalization. From first thing in the morning, through work, and into the evening, I am stone cold sober. Your take on the letter of the law endorses gun sales to functional alcoholics or chronic pill poppers, but prohibits sales to responsible recreational users of pot because of some antiquated fear of reefer madness. I know you are using the federal prohibition on pot as the basis of your argument, but feel that your characterization of pot smokers went beyond that. That was my beef. If safety is your primary issue, then I think your focus on pot is inconsistent and hypocritical. 

HesCalledDyer

dudeman said:

ponytd said:

dudeman said:

I wouldn't have a problem with alcoholism being addressed with regard to guns. If someone is dependent on any mood altering substance, they probably shouldn't be armed. 

I'd like all sales to go through an FFL with a $10.00 cap on the transfer fee. (Here is how you get Universal Background checks without the loopholes and bullshit).

Proof of training and proficiency requirements. 

Drug convictions, even misdemeanors should preclude one from owning firearms. 

If these additions, (as well as enforcing existing laws), could be made without legislators pushing agendas and politicizing the issue further, it is my opinion that we could keep guns out the hands those most likely to commit crimes with them. 

I'd agree with most of those. But let's say, you get busted with a couple of joints and get just a misdemeanor. Should you never be able to buy a gun? I don't know too many people who smoke pot who would go on a shooting rampage. I guess it comes down to, do you make broad rules or lots of specific ones?

Getting busted with pot and a misdemeanor charge is really not a big deal, IMO. Like you said, the average pot smoker is not likely to toke up and go on a shooting rampage.  However, it speaks to one's willingness to follow the law and not indulge in criminal activity. If marijuana was decriminalized at the federal level, I would have no issues with it.

As it stands now, pot smokers disregard the law and do what they want anyway. That's not a character trait that encourages compliance with other laws that they might not agree with. That's not necessarily the type of people that should be running around with guns, IMO.

I assume you follow the posted speed limit at all times?  Is speeding not breaking the law, whether caught or not?  Is that also, in your mind, a character trait that encourages non-compliance with other laws you might not agree with?  So if you go 1 MPH over the limit at any time in your life, I should make a generalized judgment about your full character?

dudeman

jeffbr said:

dudeman said:

I should clarify since I seem to have offended you. I have no issues with marijuana or pot smokers. In fact, I think it should be legalized in all 50 states. There are a lot of people currently incarcerated for nothing more than marijuana related, non violent crimes. That should change. 

But, since it is not legal at the federal level as of right now, marijuana growers, dealers and users are breaking the law. If it's legal in your state, that's great.

Now, considering the serious and often times fatal consequences of gun ownership, I don't think throwing mind altering drugs on top is a good idea. 

If you want to smoke pot...fine. If you want to own guns......fine. I just think people should choose one or the other until the day that marijuana is legal. 

I completely agree with the bolded part. My issue is that this statement should go way beyond pot or "illegal" drugs. Mind altering can and does include alcohol and prescription meds. Many meds come with a warning about not operating heavy machinery. If you shouldn't be operating heavy equipment, you sure as hell shouldn't be carrying a loaded weapon. So if one is going to deny pot smokers the ability to purchase firearms, that should extend to beer drinkers, people on anti-depressants, people on pain killers, people on high-blood pressure medication, people on sleeping meds, etc... I smoke pot daily. But I only smoke pot at night, when I'm in for the evening and won't be driving. I could just as easily have a beer or a whiskey instead. There isn't any difference between the way I use my drug of choice and the way many people have a beer in the evening. But for some reason you have decided that my use of pot is more of a danger than Billy Bob's nightly six pack. That's where I take issue with your generalization. From first thing in the morning, through work, and into the evening, I am stone cold sober. Your take on the letter of the law endorses gun sales to functional alcoholics or chronic pill poppers, but prohibits sales to responsible recreational users of pot because of some antiquated fear of reefer madness. I know you are using the federal prohibition on pot as the basis of your argument, but feel that your characterization of pot smokers went beyond that. That was my beef. If safety is your primary issue, then I think your focus on pot is inconsistent and hypocritical. 

I agree that the focus on pot is not necessarily fair relative to the lighter restrictions on prescription drugs and alcohol. It's not right but that's the way it is for now. I also agree that people who are dependent on drugs and alcohol shouldn't be walking around with guns. 

I don't have a fear of pot users or "reefer madness" either. As I stated above, pot should be legalized. The only issue I have with it is that it's illegal. People who grow, distribute and use it are breaking the law. You use yourself as an example for a harmless pot smoker and that's great. I know lots of people that do it just like you. But, until it's legal, somewhere along the line are drug dealers, gang members, illegal grow operations, money launderers, cartels and just about any other type of criminal that helps to get the harvest from the source to the end user. This is the core of the issue for me. If you're lucky enough to live in a state where you can grow your own and not help fund the cartels and gangs, my opinion on this matter doesn't apply to you. 

dudeman

HesCalledDyer said:

dudeman said:

ponytd said:

dudeman said:

I wouldn't have a problem with alcoholism being addressed with regard to guns. If someone is dependent on any mood altering substance, they probably shouldn't be armed. 

I'd like all sales to go through an FFL with a $10.00 cap on the transfer fee. (Here is how you get Universal Background checks without the loopholes and bullshit).

Proof of training and proficiency requirements. 

Drug convictions, even misdemeanors should preclude one from owning firearms. 

If these additions, (as well as enforcing existing laws), could be made without legislators pushing agendas and politicizing the issue further, it is my opinion that we could keep guns out the hands those most likely to commit crimes with them. 

I'd agree with most of those. But let's say, you get busted with a couple of joints and get just a misdemeanor. Should you never be able to buy a gun? I don't know too many people who smoke pot who would go on a shooting rampage. I guess it comes down to, do you make broad rules or lots of specific ones?

Getting busted with pot and a misdemeanor charge is really not a big deal, IMO. Like you said, the average pot smoker is not likely to toke up and go on a shooting rampage.  However, it speaks to one's willingness to follow the law and not indulge in criminal activity. If marijuana was decriminalized at the federal level, I would have no issues with it.

As it stands now, pot smokers disregard the law and do what they want anyway. That's not a character trait that encourages compliance with other laws that they might not agree with. That's not necessarily the type of people that should be running around with guns, IMO.

I assume you follow the posted speed limit at all times?  Is speeding not breaking the law, whether caught or not?  Is that also, in your mind, a character trait that encourages non-compliance with other laws you might not agree with?  So if you go 1 MPH over the limit at any time in your life, I should make a generalized judgment about your full character?

No, I don't speed. I don't drink, smoke, take drugs, steal, cheat on my taxes, etc..... 

You can make any kind of generalized judgements about my character that you like anyway. 

HesCalledDyer

dudeman said:

HesCalledDyer said:

dudeman said:

ponytd said:

dudeman said:

I wouldn't have a problem with alcoholism being addressed with regard to guns. If someone is dependent on any mood altering substance, they probably shouldn't be armed. 

I'd like all sales to go through an FFL with a $10.00 cap on the transfer fee. (Here is how you get Universal Background checks without the loopholes and bullshit).

Proof of training and proficiency requirements. 

Drug convictions, even misdemeanors should preclude one from owning firearms. 

If these additions, (as well as enforcing existing laws), could be made without legislators pushing agendas and politicizing the issue further, it is my opinion that we could keep guns out the hands those most likely to commit crimes with them. 

I'd agree with most of those. But let's say, you get busted with a couple of joints and get just a misdemeanor. Should you never be able to buy a gun? I don't know too many people who smoke pot who would go on a shooting rampage. I guess it comes down to, do you make broad rules or lots of specific ones?

Getting busted with pot and a misdemeanor charge is really not a big deal, IMO. Like you said, the average pot smoker is not likely to toke up and go on a shooting rampage.  However, it speaks to one's willingness to follow the law and not indulge in criminal activity. If marijuana was decriminalized at the federal level, I would have no issues with it.

As it stands now, pot smokers disregard the law and do what they want anyway. That's not a character trait that encourages compliance with other laws that they might not agree with. That's not necessarily the type of people that should be running around with guns, IMO.

I assume you follow the posted speed limit at all times?  Is speeding not breaking the law, whether caught or not?  Is that also, in your mind, a character trait that encourages non-compliance with other laws you might not agree with?  So if you go 1 MPH over the limit at any time in your life, I should make a generalized judgment about your full character?

No, I don't speed. I don't drink, smoke, take drugs, steal, cheat on my taxes, etc..... 

You can make any kind of generalized judgements about my character that you like anyway. 

I wasn't making them, you were.  I was asking if I should in the case you behave the same way about something trivial. And I find it extremely hard to believe you've never once in your life gone at least 1 MPH over the speed limit at any time.

rgambs

dudeman said:

jeffbr said:

dudeman said:

I should clarify since I seem to have offended you. I have no issues with marijuana or pot smokers. In fact, I think it should be legalized in all 50 states. There are a lot of people currently incarcerated for nothing more than marijuana related, non violent crimes. That should change. 

But, since it is not legal at the federal level as of right now, marijuana growers, dealers and users are breaking the law. If it's legal in your state, that's great.

Now, considering the serious and often times fatal consequences of gun ownership, I don't think throwing mind altering drugs on top is a good idea. 

If you want to smoke pot...fine. If you want to own guns......fine. I just think people should choose one or the other until the day that marijuana is legal. 

I completely agree with the bolded part. My issue is that this statement should go way beyond pot or "illegal" drugs. Mind altering can and does include alcohol and prescription meds. Many meds come with a warning about not operating heavy machinery. If you shouldn't be operating heavy equipment, you sure as hell shouldn't be carrying a loaded weapon. So if one is going to deny pot smokers the ability to purchase firearms, that should extend to beer drinkers, people on anti-depressants, people on pain killers, people on high-blood pressure medication, people on sleeping meds, etc... I smoke pot daily. But I only smoke pot at night, when I'm in for the evening and won't be driving. I could just as easily have a beer or a whiskey instead. There isn't any difference between the way I use my drug of choice and the way many people have a beer in the evening. But for some reason you have decided that my use of pot is more of a danger than Billy Bob's nightly six pack. That's where I take issue with your generalization. From first thing in the morning, through work, and into the evening, I am stone cold sober. Your take on the letter of the law endorses gun sales to functional alcoholics or chronic pill poppers, but prohibits sales to responsible recreational users of pot because of some antiquated fear of reefer madness. I know you are using the federal prohibition on pot as the basis of your argument, but feel that your characterization of pot smokers went beyond that. That was my beef. If safety is your primary issue, then I think your focus on pot is inconsistent and hypocritical. 

I agree that the focus on pot is not necessarily fair relative to the lighter restrictions on prescription drugs and alcohol. It's not right but that's the way it is for now. I also agree that people who are dependent on drugs and alcohol shouldn't be walking around with guns. 

I don't have a fear of pot users or "reefer madness" either. As I stated above, pot should be legalized. The only issue I have with it is that it's illegal. People who grow, distribute and use it are breaking the law. You use yourself as an example for a harmless pot smoker and that's great. I know lots of people that do it just like you. But, until it's legal, somewhere along the line are drug dealers, gang members, illegal grow operations, money launderers, cartels and just about any other type of criminal that helps to get the harvest from the source to the end user. This is the core of the issue for me. If you're lucky enough to live in a state where you can grow your own and not help fund the cartels and gangs, my opinion on this matter doesn't apply to you. 

Wrong.
I think you meant upstanding businesses operating within state law, following regulations, and paying taxes toward the reduction of crimes and gangs.

tbergs

I think you guys are missing dude's point. Under current law, only a few states are legal for marijuana so unless you are in the legal states you are contributing to a criminal empire, unless of course you are getting your weed from a legal grow operation out of state, which would technically be an interstate crime. I don't think the majority of pot smoking gun owners are legally obtaining their weed in non-legal states.I also think Jeff made some good points about additional restrictions that should be considered for alcohol and prescription drugs.

As for Dyer's comment about speeding, I don't think that's comparable to illegal pot smokers based on the mainly illegal operation of the marijuana industry outside the legal states. No one is profiting or benefiting from someone doing 5 mph over the speed limit; however, it could lead to a death soooo....hmmm?

Either way, there should be more sanctions on gun owners and the background they need to pass and it's actually refreshing to here someone like dude be in support of those things. Of all the things he's mentioned you're all hung up on the illegal pot smokers part.

HughFreakingDillon

tbergs said:

I think you guys are missing dude's point. Under current law, only a few states are legal for marijuana so unless you are in the legal states you are contributing to a criminal empire, unless of course you are getting your weed from a legal grow operation out of state, which would technically be an interstate crime. I don't think the majority of pot smoking gun owners are legally obtaining their weed in non-legal states.I also think Jeff made some good points about additional restrictions that should be considered for alcohol and prescription drugs.

As for Dyer's comment about speeding, I don't think that's comparable to illegal pot smokers based on the mainly illegal operation of the marijuana industry outside the legal states. No one is profiting or benefiting from someone doing 5 mph over the speed limit; however, it could lead to a death soooo....hmmm?

Either way, there should be more sanctions on gun owners and the background they need to pass and it's actually refreshing to here someone like dude be in support of those things. Of all the things he's mentioned you're all hung up on the illegal pot smokers part.

I agree. as an illegal weed obtainer (at least for another year), I often think about whose pockets I'm lining. Not a big fan of that. 

dudeman

HesCalledDyer said:

dudeman said:

HesCalledDyer said:

dudeman said:

ponytd said:

dudeman said:

I wouldn't have a problem with alcoholism being addressed with regard to guns. If someone is dependent on any mood altering substance, they probably shouldn't be armed. 

I'd like all sales to go through an FFL with a $10.00 cap on the transfer fee. (Here is how you get Universal Background checks without the loopholes and bullshit).

Proof of training and proficiency requirements. 

Drug convictions, even misdemeanors should preclude one from owning firearms. 

If these additions, (as well as enforcing existing laws), could be made without legislators pushing agendas and politicizing the issue further, it is my opinion that we could keep guns out the hands those most likely to commit crimes with them. 

I'd agree with most of those. But let's say, you get busted with a couple of joints and get just a misdemeanor. Should you never be able to buy a gun? I don't know too many people who smoke pot who would go on a shooting rampage. I guess it comes down to, do you make broad rules or lots of specific ones?

Getting busted with pot and a misdemeanor charge is really not a big deal, IMO. Like you said, the average pot smoker is not likely to toke up and go on a shooting rampage.  However, it speaks to one's willingness to follow the law and not indulge in criminal activity. If marijuana was decriminalized at the federal level, I would have no issues with it.

As it stands now, pot smokers disregard the law and do what they want anyway. That's not a character trait that encourages compliance with other laws that they might not agree with. That's not necessarily the type of people that should be running around with guns, IMO.

I assume you follow the posted speed limit at all times?  Is speeding not breaking the law, whether caught or not?  Is that also, in your mind, a character trait that encourages non-compliance with other laws you might not agree with?  So if you go 1 MPH over the limit at any time in your life, I should make a generalized judgment about your full character?

No, I don't speed. I don't drink, smoke, take drugs, steal, cheat on my taxes, etc..... 

You can make any kind of generalized judgements about my character that you like anyway. 

I wasn't making them, you were.  I was asking if I should in the case you behave the same way about something trivial. And I find it extremely hard to believe you've never once in your life gone at least 1 MPH over the speed limit at any time.

The generalization I made about pot smokers is that they are breaking the law. That's it. 

Also, I never said that I "never once in my life went 1 MPH over the speed limit".You said that for me. What I said is that I don't speed. 

Furthermore, there is a considerable difference between driving 1MPH over the speed limit and indulging in recreational drug use. 

PJ_Soul

HughFreakingDillon said:

tbergs said:

I think you guys are missing dude's point. Under current law, only a few states are legal for marijuana so unless you are in the legal states you are contributing to a criminal empire, unless of course you are getting your weed from a legal grow operation out of state, which would technically be an interstate crime. I don't think the majority of pot smoking gun owners are legally obtaining their weed in non-legal states.I also think Jeff made some good points about additional restrictions that should be considered for alcohol and prescription drugs.

As for Dyer's comment about speeding, I don't think that's comparable to illegal pot smokers based on the mainly illegal operation of the marijuana industry outside the legal states. No one is profiting or benefiting from someone doing 5 mph over the speed limit; however, it could lead to a death soooo....hmmm?

Either way, there should be more sanctions on gun owners and the background they need to pass and it's actually refreshing to here someone like dude be in support of those things. Of all the things he's mentioned you're all hung up on the illegal pot smokers part.

I agree. as an illegal weed obtainer (at least for another year), I often think about whose pockets I'm lining. Not a big fan of that. 

Another reason I still can't get over the relief I feel every time I go to the medical dispensary. Too bad more Canadian cities aren't handling things like Vancouver is. I really can't fathom why other cities haven't followed Vancouver's lead there. It's stupid.

dudeman

rgambs said:

dudeman said:

jeffbr said:

dudeman said:

I should clarify since I seem to have offended you. I have no issues with marijuana or pot smokers. In fact, I think it should be legalized in all 50 states. There are a lot of people currently incarcerated for nothing more than marijuana related, non violent crimes. That should change. 

But, since it is not legal at the federal level as of right now, marijuana growers, dealers and users are breaking the law. If it's legal in your state, that's great.

Now, considering the serious and often times fatal consequences of gun ownership, I don't think throwing mind altering drugs on top is a good idea. 

If you want to smoke pot...fine. If you want to own guns......fine. I just think people should choose one or the other until the day that marijuana is legal. 

I completely agree with the bolded part. My issue is that this statement should go way beyond pot or "illegal" drugs. Mind altering can and does include alcohol and prescription meds. Many meds come with a warning about not operating heavy machinery. If you shouldn't be operating heavy equipment, you sure as hell shouldn't be carrying a loaded weapon. So if one is going to deny pot smokers the ability to purchase firearms, that should extend to beer drinkers, people on anti-depressants, people on pain killers, people on high-blood pressure medication, people on sleeping meds, etc... I smoke pot daily. But I only smoke pot at night, when I'm in for the evening and won't be driving. I could just as easily have a beer or a whiskey instead. There isn't any difference between the way I use my drug of choice and the way many people have a beer in the evening. But for some reason you have decided that my use of pot is more of a danger than Billy Bob's nightly six pack. That's where I take issue with your generalization. From first thing in the morning, through work, and into the evening, I am stone cold sober. Your take on the letter of the law endorses gun sales to functional alcoholics or chronic pill poppers, but prohibits sales to responsible recreational users of pot because of some antiquated fear of reefer madness. I know you are using the federal prohibition on pot as the basis of your argument, but feel that your characterization of pot smokers went beyond that. That was my beef. If safety is your primary issue, then I think your focus on pot is inconsistent and hypocritical. 

I agree that the focus on pot is not necessarily fair relative to the lighter restrictions on prescription drugs and alcohol. It's not right but that's the way it is for now. I also agree that people who are dependent on drugs and alcohol shouldn't be walking around with guns. 

I don't have a fear of pot users or "reefer madness" either. As I stated above, pot should be legalized. The only issue I have with it is that it's illegal. People who grow, distribute and use it are breaking the law. You use yourself as an example for a harmless pot smoker and that's great. I know lots of people that do it just like you. But, until it's legal, somewhere along the line are drug dealers, gang members, illegal grow operations, money launderers, cartels and just about any other type of criminal that helps to get the harvest from the source to the end user. This is the core of the issue for me. If you're lucky enough to live in a state where you can grow your own and not help fund the cartels and gangs, my opinion on this matter doesn't apply to you. 

Wrong.
I think you meant upstanding businesses operating within state law, following regulations, and paying taxes toward the reduction of crimes and gangs.

WRONG. Only in a few states is your narrative accurate. 

HughFreakingDillon

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

tbergs said:

I think you guys are missing dude's point. Under current law, only a few states are legal for marijuana so unless you are in the legal states you are contributing to a criminal empire, unless of course you are getting your weed from a legal grow operation out of state, which would technically be an interstate crime. I don't think the majority of pot smoking gun owners are legally obtaining their weed in non-legal states.I also think Jeff made some good points about additional restrictions that should be considered for alcohol and prescription drugs.

As for Dyer's comment about speeding, I don't think that's comparable to illegal pot smokers based on the mainly illegal operation of the marijuana industry outside the legal states. No one is profiting or benefiting from someone doing 5 mph over the speed limit; however, it could lead to a death soooo....hmmm?

Either way, there should be more sanctions on gun owners and the background they need to pass and it's actually refreshing to here someone like dude be in support of those things. Of all the things he's mentioned you're all hung up on the illegal pot smokers part.

I agree. as an illegal weed obtainer (at least for another year), I often think about whose pockets I'm lining. Not a big fan of that. 

Another reason I still can't get over the relief I feel every time I go to the medical dispensary. Too bad more Canadian cities aren't handling things like Vancouver is. I really can't fathom why other cities haven't followed Vancouver's lead there. It's stupid.

in winnipeg, not only do they not do that (I still can't wrap my head around how it's legal in vancouver), they raided one of the local pipe shops by my place and confiscated almost all of their inventory. mind you, it was bootlegged/unlicensed stuff (like Krusty the Klown bongs, etc), but still........now every single product in the place has a sticker on it that states "for tobacco use only", and while the name is still "The Joint", the subname is "glassware and tobacconist". 

that sticker makes me laugh every time I pull from my pipe.