Libertarians Rule, Ds And Rs Drool...

[YesMichigan]

But here in Michigan, locally, we aren't voting for pro marijuana candidates very well.  Actually, Michigan votes for drug warriors anymore it seems. Why? Because we have shifted republican, and it comes with the territory.

 

I think you know what it is. The electorate is vastly different in the Gubernatorial years. I do blame a lack of truly progressive policies for creating an apathetic voter base in the Democratic party. The theme of this thread is why the Democrats lost so many seats in November. You can all me a moron but there is little denying my feelings of disillusion or lack of fervent representation from the DNC are shared by those who would call themselves a Democrat.

[YesMichigan]

It's not about hate R's more,... it is about just look at it yourself and it is as obvious as the sky is blue, the wind blows and the grass is green.

 

For me it is still read each candidate's bio. Read who their friends are. What did they do before running for office? What quotes are attributed to them? What do I think their stance on key issues is?

 

As you said "That's your Constitutional right" and I smiled.

[+Malamute]

Specifically in Michigan, democrats support us for the most part.  But when ya have a 27-11 republican majority ,... um,... there is only one party to blame. :-)

 

States run by democrats have been fervent in helping patients. Such as the list I posted of democratic states who have legislatively passed medical marijuana laws.

 

 Show me even one republican ya know.

 

 I mean,... again,  a trees/forest issue.

 

 Kinda have to put the blinders on to not see it.

[+Malamute]

Here ya go Yesmichigan.

 

 Call out the bad ones right?

 

Republican Chuck Grassley and Democrat Dianne Feinstein are united in their opposition to ceding the war on drugs. Last week, they sent a joint letter to Secretary of State John Kerry and one to Attorney General Eric Holder expressing their concerns that the legalization of marijuana in some states is in direct conflict with international conventions.

 

Tom Angell, chairman of Marijuana Majority, completely agrees. But how to remedy that contention? That’s where their agreement ends.

 

Senators Grassley of Iowa and Feinstein of California, in their letters to Kerry and Holder, argue that the Obama administration’s decision not to interfere with states legalizing recreational marijuana makes it difficult for the U.S. to then defend “compliance” with the United Nations Conventions on Narcotics treaty, which says marijuana should be limited to scientific and medical use.

 

In the fall, Assistant Secretary of State William Brownfield said there should be a flexible interpretation of the treaty. That, the senators wrote to Kerry, “could create a harmful precedent that would allow state parties to implement policies that legalize other, even more harmful drugs, without recourse.”

 

Angell agreed there is an inconsistency. “When the U.S. has legal marijuana, it makes it difficult for U.S. officials to go around the world and say they should continue to prohibit marijuana,” he told the Loop. But unlike the senators, advocates for legalizing the drug would prefer the U.S. support amending the U.N. treaties to be more lenient.

 

“We both see the same effect, we see what is coming down the line,” Angell said, referring to changing marijuana laws. “We like it, they don’t like it. We’re winning, they’re not.”

 

There is one more area in which Angell and drug reformers side with the senators. In the Grassley and Feinstein letter to Holder, they ask that Justice compile data on the “overall effect” of allowing states to legalize marijuana – such as whether it’s easier for minors to get pot.

 

“Yeah, we’d like to see that data all compiled in a nice neat package,” Angell said, predicting that it would show that legalizing pot generates tax revenue, reduces the size of the drug black market and would generally support the case for legalization.

Or, maybe it would show Feinstein’s right that weed is a gateway drug.

And yes, it is not lost on us that a senator with the last name “Grassley” is spearheading an anti-marijuana effort.

 

[YesMichigan]

Specifically in Michigan, democrats support us for the most part.  But when ya have a 27-11 republican majority ,... um,... there is only one party to blame. :-)

 

States run by democrats have been fervent in helping patients. Such as the list I posted of democratic states who have legislatively passed medical marijuana laws.

 

 Show me even one republican ya know.

 

 I mean,... again,  a trees/forest issue.

 

 Kinda have to put the blinders on to not see it.

 

It is almost artful how you use despicable Republican (who I explicitly point out in the title of the thread via the word "too") behavior to hide the behavior in the Democratic party among Prohibitionists in the ranks. Especially when the next most likely candidate from the Democrat Party doesn't espouse what you do.

 

That's how I feel as you try to paint me as a Republican or a Libertarian. Nope, just pointing out that until we vote for the PEOPLE who will work to end Prohibition instead of letters regardless of agenda we're not moving ahead.

 

I'm interested to see how it all works out in Michigan. I love the state but I'll move to Colorado tomorrow if the Republicans go Gestapo like I know they want to do.

[+Malamute]

He has increased Federal raids in California (more than Bush) and only eased his stance (in my opinion) to try and salvage what was a lost election season. Calling off the DoJ (to some extent though I'm not convinced in Colorado from some articles we've seen here) is a step of progress. Far short of what I hoped for and not what I would have hoped for as a voter of him.

 

You support the right for citizens to bear arms. Semi-automatic AK-47 30 round mag 7.62 x 39mm just as the law allows? Awesome - you're a Democrat I like now.

 

Aww and there you go again. I say it doesn't, I'll go a step further and say it doesn't fully represent two. Now let's see who can insult the other one better or be more arrogant in their assertion to figure out if it "simply does" or "simply doesn't". Go!

 

 

 Again, perspective.

 

 Obama has raided an insanely smaller percentage of dispensaries than Bush did.  That argument is silly and misrepresentative of the truth.

 

Also, as far as second amendment, it does not say WHICH arms you can possess.  It says you can possess arms.  So, I do not agree completely. There are boundaries to the Constitution.  I believe it is constitutional to restrict which arms are allowed, to an extent, and who can own and has criminally forfeited their right to have arms, OR for what purpose an arm can be used.  Interpretation is essential. :-)

[+Malamute]

In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court considered the matter in United States v. Miller. 307 U.S. 174. The Court adopted a collective rights approach in this case, determining that Congress could regulate a sawed-off shotgun that had moved in interstate commerce under the National Firearms Act of 1934 because the evidence did not suggest that the shotgun "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated milita . . . ." The Court then explained that the Framers included the Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the military.

 

This precedent stood for nearly 70 years when in 2008 the U.S. Supreme Court revisited the issue in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290). The plaintiff in Heller challenged the constitutionality of the Washington D.C. handgun ban, a statute that had stood for 32 years. Many considered the statute the most stringent in the nation. In a 5-4 decision, the Court, meticulously detailing the history and tradition of the Second Amendment at the time of the Constitutional Convention, proclaimed that the Second Amendment established an individual right for U.S. citizens to possess firearms and struck down the D.C. handgun ban as violative of that right. The majority carved out Miller as an exception to the general rule that

Americans may possess firearms, claiming that law-abiding citizens cannot use sawed-off shotguns for any law-abiding purchase. Similarly, the Court in its dicta found regulations of similar weaponry that cannot be used for law-abiding purchases as laws that would not implicate the Second Amendment. Further, the Court suggested that the United States Constitution would not disallow regulations prohibiting criminals and the mentally ill from firearm possession.

[YesMichigan]

 Again, perspective.

 

 Obama has raided an insanely smaller percentage of dispensaries than Bush did.  That argument is silly and misrepresentative of the truth.

 

Also, as far as second amendment, it does not say WHICH arms you can possess.  It says you can possess arms.  So, I do not agree completely. There are boundaries to the Constitution.  I believe it is constitutional to restrict which arms are allowed, to an extent, and who can own and has criminally forfeited their right to have arms, OR for what purpose an arm can be used.  Interpretation is essential. :-)

 

There were fewer dispensaries under Bush one could argue for sure. I'd also say that Bush was more worried about Afghanistan and Iraq to irritate the "hippies". He arrested as many black people as he could so that was good enough to make the core of the party happy.

 

To the second part. I figure I won't be alone in this thread too much longer. So you aren't for AK-47s with 30 round magazines in the hands of legal and lawful citizens? Squeaky clean background and volunteers at the local soup kitchen. Can she have an AK?

 

How many Democrats do you think are in the NRA? Serious question.

[YesMichigan]

Here ya go Yesmichigan.

 

 Call out the bad ones right?

 

And I'm sorry. That was great. Thank you. I'm out of likes, didn't want it going unnoticed.

[+Malamute]

There were fewer dispensaries under Bush one could argue for sure. I'd also say that Bush was more worried about Afghanistan and Iraq to irritate the "hippies". He arrested as many black people as he could so that was good enough to make the core of the party happy.

 

To the second part. I figure I won't be alone in this thread too much longer. So you aren't for AK-47s with 30 round magazines in the hands of legal and lawful citizens? Squeaky clean background and volunteers at the local soup kitchen. Can she have an AK?

 

How many Democrats do you think are in the NRA? Serious question.

 

 

 No need to argue on the number of dispensaries. Facts be facts. Seems people are having short term memory issues on how commercial has progressed in the last 15+ years.

 

I have a legitimate point of view that AK's may not be legitimate such as sawed off shotguns.

[YesMichigan]

 No need to argue on the number of dispensaries. Facts be facts. Seems people are having short term memory issues on how commercial has progressed in the last 15+ years.

 

I have a legitimate point of view that AK's may not be legitimate such as sawed off shotguns.

 

No need for us to argue about if Bush was or wasn't a tool in Rummy's Administration, we agree he was. The article said it not me. A group of people attributed to "our" side said it. I know you'll say "not my side" but yeah, you know ASA would vote a ticket nearly identical to yours.

 

Why do you hold the AK in such regard? The steel-core round? I understand your position and am not looking to deride you. I accept that you are a fairly reasonable and fairly intelligent person so I am interested in your desire to ban AKs. Would you do the same to say a Ruger 9mm Long Rifle with a 20 round magazine? Or a K98 7.92 with a five-round stripper clip?

 

How many Democrats do you think are in the NRA? Two? Lots?

Edited January 20, 2015 by YesMichigan

[+Malamute]

I think less than 2% of gun owners are in the NRA.  Plus, 25% of their claimed membership are dead.  They never remove "lifetime members", or members who have asked to be removed. Kinda like the mormon church in that regard.

 

 

First of all, why buy foreign made guns?  Show a little loyalty aye,...

 

Secondly, I do not see the use. What do you need a AK for? Entertainment?  The constitution does not include entertainment as part of the right. ;-)

 

Like I said,.. I think certain arms fall under the no legitimate use category of sawed off shotguns.

 

I support gun ownership no problem, I just have a different view of it.

 

No different than say, freedom of speech. I believe there are limits to freedom of speech, such as yelling "fire" in a crowded area that causes chaos and pandemonium.

 

I just feel certain arms fall under a similar type of restriction. As the Supreme court has backed me up on. :-)

[+Malamute]

Ok,.. here ya go,.. real time.

 

 A new bill was introduced in Michigan legislature.

 

http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?2015-HB-4013

 

Do you support the second amendment in this way?

[YesMichigan]

I think less than 2% of gun owners are in the NRA.  Plus, 25% of their claimed membership are dead.  They never remove "lifetime members", or members who have asked to be removed. Kinda like the mormon church in that regard.

 

 

First of all, why buy foreign made guns?  Show a little loyalty aye,...

 

Secondly, I do not see the use. What do you need a AK for? Entertainment?  The constitution does not include entertainment as part of the right. ;-)

 

Like I said,.. I think certain arms fall under the no legitimate use category of sawed off shotguns.

 

I support gun ownership no problem, I just have a different view of it.

 

No different than say, freedom of speech. I believe there are limits to freedom of speech, such as yelling "fire" in a crowded area that causes chaos and pandemonium.

 

I just feel certain arms fall under a similar type of restriction. As the Supreme court has backed me up on. :-)

 

K98 is a beautiful piece of craftsmanship. WWII vintage and can hit center black with iron sights at 100 yards if you have the eyes to see that far.

 

Pursuit of happiness made that Declaration thingamajig.

 

I'm not trying to paint you in a position (as you do to me *cough cough*) I'm honestly asking for understanding of another person's position.

 

I think yelling "Fire" is universally accepted as unprotected speech. The Supreme Court agrees. I don't think there is any parallel between that and your neighbor's right to have a M4 Bushmaster with extra magazines ready that you'll likely never know she owns.

 

Supreme Court disagrees with you on AKs. Same thing with 10+ round magazines.

 

I don't fear my neighbors, I'd rather they were armed and trained in the use of their firearms. But that's me.

[+Malamute]

Supreme court has never ruled on AK's specifically.

 

;-)

 

 The topic was merely handguns.

[+Malamute]

Well, it is most likely, if that bushmaster shoots someone, it will be a family or friend.  Hehehe.

 

 Not sure it is needed in society. I mean "Responsible gun owners" are regularly shooting their kids, or letting their kids shoot other people.  ;-)

[YesMichigan]

Ok,.. here ya go,.. real time.

 

 A new bill was introduced in Michigan legislature.

 

http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?2015-HB-4013

 

Do you support the second amendment in this way?

 

This is an interesting one and a topic I've followed for awhile. I know some PPOs are crap. I know some CPS cases are bogus. I also know that there are non-violent felons (medical marijuana victims come to mind) who deserve protection.

 

That said, I don't think it was well thought out legislation or an appropriate time for it. I'm okay with Snyder vetoing it but there is a valid SCOTUS precedent that the State could face: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp-content/uploads/sites/14/2014/09/binderup.pdf

 

"And because of this, the presumption that there’s no Second Amendment problem with barring felons from possessing guns, the court held, has been rebutted.

 

[P]laintiff has demonstrated that, if allowed to keep and bear arms in his home for purposes of self-defense, he would present no more threat to the community that the average law-abiding citizen."

 

That is as it applies to a felon. Certainly a PPO petitioner could present a case that would illustrate greater freedom from the Federal statute.

[+Malamute]

That case doesn't really mean anything. Just a Penn district court.

 

 I was just reading all the bills introduced so far this session in Michigan. Just finished reading them all.

 

 That is why I referenced that bill. :-)

[Restorium2]

Guns are universally accepted across party lines. It's not a Dem or Republican matter, as much as Republicans would have you believe it is. Same with abortion. No one wants to kill a child. Any other false fear appeals to discuss here on a medical marijuana site?

[Restorium2]

Gays? Republicans OK with that? Might as well go there too. 

[YesMichigan]

Well, it is most likely, if that bushmaster shoots someone, it will be a family or friend.  Hehehe.

 

 Not sure it is needed in society. I mean "Responsible gun owners" are regularly shooting their kids, or letting their kids shoot other people.  ;-)

 

Regularly eh? I want to say what you rarely say to people but I won't. I'll just figure you got excited and have read the talking points one too many times.

 

It's kind of like people regularly getting hit by lightning when we talk about "rampage" shooting attacks. I'll be fascinated to look at your statistics that illustrate these "regular" shootings of children.

 

Do we say that firearm deaths are 1/4 of obesity deaths annually? If we pull suicides out of that 1/10th of the people in 2011 died from firearms compared to obesity. Bloomberg put his millions behind the wrong movement.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_preventable_causes_of_death#cite_note-CDC2011-13

 

Or maybe you're kidding and trying to use the absurd to prove a point?

[YesMichigan]

Guns are universally accepted across party lines. It's not a Dem or Republican matter, as much as Republicans would have you believe it is. Same with abortion. No one wants to kill a child. Any other false fear appeals to discuss here on a medical marijuana site?

 

Oh, you're still upset. That's unfortunate.

 

So you're saying many Democrats belong to the NRA? It's a relevant point on this forum because NRA membership funds Republican candidates.

[YesMichigan]

To answer Malamute's question from way back on the amendments: I knew the 3rd and 22nd off the top of my head. I'll admit I had forgotten the 16th which made me sad as my girlfriend and I reviewed them all before Christmas so we can start teaching the younguns.

[+Malamute]

Regularly eh? I want to say what you rarely say to people but I won't. I'll just figure you got excited and have read the talking points one too many times.

 

It's kind of like people regularly getting hit by lightning when we talk about "rampage" shooting attacks. I'll be fascinated to look at your statistics that illustrate these "regular" shootings of children.

 

Do we say that firearm deaths are 1/4 of obesity deaths annually? If we pull suicides out of that 1/10th of the people in 2011 died from firearms compared to obesity. Bloomberg put his millions behind the wrong movement.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_preventable_causes_of_death#cite_note-CDC2011-13

 

Or maybe you're kidding and trying to use the absurd to prove a point?

 

Well, I guess regularly means at least weekly to me? Few times a week?

 

So I stand by my statement. 

 

 I mean, here is one today even. It happens regularly.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/01/20/missouri-9-month-old-fatally-shot-in-his-crib-by-5-year-old-brother-police-say/

 

and then just upon simple search, here is the second article via search(the previous one being first):

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/29/us/children-and-guns-the-hidden-toll.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

[+Malamute]

And recall, these are covering deaths only.  It doesn't cover being shot and not dying and kids accidentally setting of firearms where no one was injured. ;-)

 

So yea,...

 

When people ask,.. at what cost does freedom come,.. I always remind them, every year, we have to slaughter hundreds of children to have it.  I support the second amendment,... but let us not try to cover up the true cost.  It is kinda like "The Lottery" for children to have this right.