The 40-year-old man was shot Wednesday morning at the home across the street from Roeding Park. He's in critical condition at Community Regional Medical Center.
I thought all these medical marijuana guys were just stoners with cooperating doctors. I guess some of them are armed pot dealers with cooperating doctors.
The solution: Prop 19.
What do you think?
The solution: Prop 19.
ReplyDeleteHey--waddya' know? We agree on something, although we might differ on just what Prop. 19 is the solution to. I think it's the solution to this kind of atrocity (the prospective gun buyer would have to be a little more circumspect with his answer to Question 11e, on ATF Form 4473, of course).
"atrocity", you are a laugh a minute.
ReplyDeleteBut you bring up an interesting issue. Let me go on record. Any marijuana use, for any reason is a disqualifier. One strike you're out.
When I made some remarks along those lines about drinking, I was doing so for emphasis. Here's what I say about that. In order to enjoy the right to gun registration and licensing, which will be required in the future, one must never exceed a certain threshold of blood alcohol content. This threshold will be much lower than that used for determining driving under the influence, but it will still allow that ocassional beer or glass of wine with dinner.
Of course, your right to privacy will continue unimpeded. Police controls with a breathalyzer or blood test will require probable cause. But, one violation and forfeiture of weapons and gun rights follow.
From Zorro via Yahoo:
ReplyDelete*************************
"atrocity", you are a laugh a minute.
Glad you enjoyed it, but "atrocity" is exactly what I meant, with no intent to amuse.
Let me go on record. Any marijuana use, for any reason is a disqualifier. One strike you're out.
Yeah--I think you've long made quite clear your adherence to that . . . peculiar position, the fact that marijuana causes less impairment than many approved pain relief medications (and less than alcohol in the amounts it's often consumed) notwithstanding.
When I made some remarks along those lines about drinking, I was doing so for emphasis.
Ah, yes--Jadefool's Biggest (Only?) Cheerleader's favorite technique--using words to mean . . . something other than what they mean. Who are you, Yogi Berra?
In order to enjoy the right to gun registration and licensing . . .
"Enjoy" the "right" to registration and licensing. Ha ha--you're fucking hilarious.
This threshold will be much lower than that used for determining driving under the influence . . . Kinetic energy of a 230 grain .45 ACP bullet at 850 feet per second: 369 ft. lb.
Kinetic energy of a 3000 lb car at 60 mph: 361,036 ft. lbs, and a 25 mpg car with 10 gallons of gas has a 250 mile range, while the .45 has an effective range of maybe 100 yards, and a maximum range of maybe 1600 yards (at which range it would be unlikely to leave a bruise).
Let's note also that a person driving a car must exercise conscious control over it constantly, while a drunk person whose gun is in the safe, the gun cabinet, or even the holster on his waist, won't hurt anyone with it.
Yeah--your idea makes lots of sense.
Jadefool's Biggest (Only?) Cheerleader:
ReplyDeleteHere's what I say about that. In order to enjoy the right to gun registration and licensing, which will be required in the future, one must never exceed a certain threshold of blood alcohol content. This threshold will be much lower than that used for determining driving under the influence, but it will still allow that ocassional beer or glass of wine with dinner.
By the way, who do you propose will be enforcing all these myriad gun laws you advocate? You sure as hell ain't going to have enough cops to do it, especially considering this tidbit of information from the FBI:
Estimates show that alcohol abuse among police officers in the United States is approximately double that of the general population...
Looks like your "alcohol and guns" restrictions are going to need an exemption for "Only Ones."
OK--my curiosity about this is enough to overcome my abhorrence of comment moderation. Now that Attorney General Holder has announced the feds' intention to ignore the will of the people of California if Prop 19 passes, any thoughts about changing your position on state sovereignty ("states' rights" isn't a term I much like, because I think of states as having powers, rather than "rights"--you've probably noticed that I'm something of a stickler for accurate terminology)?
ReplyDeleteOr are you going to pick and choose which aspects of state sovereignty can be legitimately raped in the name of the interstate commerce clause?
Zorro, Thanks for the comment and those links. If I had my druthers, the fed would take over both gun control and the legalization of drugs. States and individuals would just say "yessir."
ReplyDelete