That sounds like a pretty good argument. When it comes to defending gun rights, you know how they pick and choose, applying what works for them and ignoring the rest. This one they want to ignore.Ryan Kirchoff, an attorney for Jackson County, said the Gun Control Act is designed to keep guns out of the hands of people Congress considered potentially dangerous or irresponsible, such as those who use a controlled substance.
Because marijuana is a controlled substance, the county argues gun ownership would be barred under the Gun Control Act, he said. But the state statute concerning concealed weapons doesn't explicitly address it.
I have a simpler defense. People who use medical marijuana should not own guns, let alone carry them around, because pot interferes with your motor skills, your thinking, your sensory perception, all of which are indispensible for responsible gun management.
Besides, medical marijuana patients fall into two categories. Most are people who like to get high and are scamming the system, of course they should be disqualified from gun ownership. The minority is people who really need relief from extremely severe physical symptoms of various diseases, which unfortunately, must disqualify them too.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Absolutely. If a person takes a mind-altering drug of any kind, legal or not, they should not be allowed to possess guns. Same goes for those who drink in excess. All it takes is one moment of bad judgement or impetuous behavior to destroy a life.
ReplyDeleteMy blog post on this:
http://newtrajectory.blogspot.com/2011/05/guns-for-stoners.html
I think that's kind of pussy to okay social drinkers and disallow potheads. To each his own. You sound like a people pleaser. At least Mike has some integrity. Me? Sorry, I really don't need a fucking gun. I don't ever plan on killing another human being. Personally, I couldn't care less if people who own guns drink, smoke weed or even worse. Certainly a lot of drug pushers use their own product. You're going to tell me they don't have a right to protect themselves from theft or attack? Don't buy it. You're just preaching to the choir. A pretty boring choir at that, Mr. Baldr.
ReplyDeleteYour ignorance is showing flying junior; NO, people using illegal drugs, or legal drugs being used illegally, do NOT have a right to defend themselves with a gun, BECAUSE they are engaged in illegal activity. Further, since as drug users they are not legally allowed to own or otherwise possess firearms, it is doubly illegal for them to use a gun in self defense.
ReplyDeleteSheesh! Do you always miss the obvious so completely?
If all the laws on the books were consistently and flawlessly enforced we would no longer be a free country. That's what totalitarianism is. Think China or the CCCP. East Germany. Even the founders saw that coming. Why do you think they tried to make us free from unreasonable search and seizure? If the police have a good reason to curtail liberties for the greater good, hopefully the courts will allow them. A good example is the fourth amendment. We don't have a Big Brother that forces entry into each and every house and apartment in the U.S.
ReplyDeleteflighty junior, that is one of the stupidest, most ill substantiated, ill informed things you've ever written. Given your impressive accumulation of such statements, that is going a distance, to top your usual thoughtless ignorance.
ReplyDeleteTryt harder, not to outdo yourself with stupid, but to think more clearly and more substantively.
I don't know what to say. You really don't tolerate opposing views very well, do you? I don't think I'm going to comment over here anymore as long as you have administrator status. Good luck and best wishes.
ReplyDeleteI don't tolerate stupidity Flying Junior; it has nothing whatsoever to do with opposing view points. In particular I've PRAISED TS for some of his arguments which were in opposition to my POV, as an exmaple.
ReplyDeleteDon't hide behind that argument; it is another false premise. Comment or not here; anyone and everyone can expect the content of their comment to be given a critical analysis and response. Your comments weren't very good; what I wrote was addressing that, not simply that you have an opposing view.
I think you can handle that, don't you?
I won't let you scare me away since you were kind enough to answer civilly. I don't get what is so stupid about introducing anyone as naïve as you to the Caponian system. I'm not the one who is ignorant. You obviously live in an ivory tower. You've never talked to anyone who is in jail for narcotics charges. You don't know what it means to be a sheriff or policeman in a county where this is an issue. I have stated before on this blog that one of the more compelling reasons to own a gun is to protect a criminal enterprise. I just don't associate gun ownership with the good guys. Blame it on my background. I will cut you some slack. I was clearly being a chauvinist. I welcome your viewpoint. It's just that this blog is pretty much the only male bonding I get outside of church, dad and grandkids.
ReplyDeleteFJ wrote: "I won't let you scare me away since you were kind enough to answer civilly."
ReplyDeleteI responded exactly the same way I responded previously; if that "scares you", then you're a wuss who needs to grow a pair to navigate the blogosphere, because by those standards this is tame AND civil. I'm accustomed to reasoned argument; I am polite, and articulate, and don't even need to raise my voice to make my points. I'm comfortable in writing on sites where I am the minority opposition - and even the only woman present (lady or otherwise).
The FJ wrote "I don't get what is so stupid about introducing anyone as naïve as you to the Caponian system."
The 'Caponian' system? What, are you a nerd who lives in your mother's basement with deficient social skills? http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Caponia
Or are you referring to some crazy notions you have about the historic figure, Alphonse Al Scarface Capone, the bootlegger? Seriously? I'll match history knowledge with pretty much anyone. Capone died in, what, 1947? You DO know that our society has change significantly since the era when he went to prison, never mind the time period since he died of syphilis complications.
The our silly FJ wrote: "I'm not the one who is ignorant."
Yes. YOU ARE.
FJ wrote, if I may be allowed to Fisk this drivel: "You obviously live in an ivory tower."
No, this is not obvious, nor is it correct.
FJ continued to drool: "You've never talked to anyone who is in jail for narcotics charges. You don't know what it means to be a sheriff or policeman in a county where this is an issue."
What a load of crap which completely bypasses either facts, or reasoned argument. But by all means, this is a perfect occasion to defer this to Laci - a very successful criminal defense attorney who IS by profession all too familiar with these criminals as clients. By implication, we're supposed to believe YOU have street cred? Pfffffffffffffftttttttttttttt!
FJ wrote:"I have stated before on this blog that one of the more compelling reasons to own a gun is to protect a criminal enterprise."
You have no connection to compelling argument OR reasoning here.
What you make is an argument to deny these people any firearm.
Your reasoning is turgid, turbid AND torpid.
What you wrote was:"You're going to tell me they don't have a right to protect themselves from theft or attack?"
YES, I'm telling you EXACTLY that. They don't have a RIGHT to do that. And then I CORRECTLY outlined WHY they don't have a right to do that.
I would disagree with MikeB that the majority of medical marijuana users are scamming the system.
I would agree with MikeB that there are a variety of reasons that people with some kinds of medical impairment, including drug related ones, should not own firearms.
Then FJ concluded with "Blame it on my background. I will cut you some slack. I was clearly being a chauvinist. I welcome your viewpoint. It's just that this blog is pretty much the only male bonding I get outside of church, dad and grandkids."
No, you were not being a chauvinist; you may have tried, but it fell flat. This blog doesn't exist to gratify anyone's need for male bonding; it is a forum for discussion of a variety of issues, primarily but not exclusively for those relating to firearms.
I have wide ranging interests which is why I blog not only here, but on my home base blog at Penigma, on OpinionEditorial, and elsewhere.
Now Dog Gone and Flying Junior, I want you two kids to kiss and make up (or at least lighten up a tiny bit)
ReplyDeleteMine is a sort-of zero tolerance for pot and alcohol and other drugs for gun owners. Yet, I realize it would be problematic to legislate, to say the least.
Let's talk about "best practices." Do we all agree no mood altering substances, legal or otherwise, would be best?
mikeb, NO. I see no reason to refrain from critiquing someone when they say something stupid.
ReplyDeleteIf you're suggesting I not be critical of stupid statements when fj makes them, that is rather patronizing - towards HIM - don't you think?
Beyond that, when someone starts using stupid phrases like 'caponian', and then speaks of chauvinism, he's simply asking for it.
I still don't get why I'm stupid and you're such a blessing. I think it's pretty crazy for anybody to own guns for anything other than hunting or perhaps personal protection in a rough neighborhood. It's also pretty crazy to go around ranting about who should do what or what laws need to be changed...
ReplyDeleteThere's only a few laws that need to be changed right now. We need another assault weapons ban. We need to prevent straw purchases. We need to keep kids safe from guns. America is a crazy place to live precisely because we have so many guns. I go to this blog mostly for entertainment. I take it all with a grain of salt.
I like everything you just said, Flying Junior. I also like Dog Gone's more passionate take on things. I consider both of you on my side. On the major issues I think we all agree.
ReplyDelete"Entertainment" was one of the very first things I used to say to describe this blog.