Why Is Marijuana Banned?

[imiubu]

If that ^^ is so then why does the 2nd. Amendment speak of Militias???

[Highlander]

Overthrowing the government (in the U.S.) by armed citizens simply can't happen regardless of how many assault rifles are owned by responsible citizens. There is a bit of dichotomy here when one considers that the same people who want the U.S. to have the most powerful military in the world also want very loose controls on firearms for the average citizen. If you want your tax dollars to fund a strong military, then you should realize that the government will always have more money, more soldiers, and better weapons.

[trichcycler]

Wouldn't scalawags be mopping the poop deck ?

on your topic, In United States history scalawags were Southern whites who supported Reconstruction and the Republican Party, after the American Civil War.

 

carry on

[trichcycler]

some guys quote;

 

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."

- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

[Norby]

Wouldn't scalawags be mopping the poop deck ?

Not if it's snowing.

[Norby]

 

Overthrowing the government (in the U.S.) by armed citizens simply can't happen regardless of how many assault rifles are owned by responsible citizens. There is a bit of dichotomy here when one considers that the same people who want the U.S. to have the most powerful military in the world also want very loose controls on firearms for the average citizen. If you want your tax dollars to fund a strong military, then you should realize that the government will always have more money, more soldiers, and better weapons.

 

That they CAN NOT use on it's citizenry, hence the militarization of police.  Again, I'm talking defense from, not to overthrow.  But there are many inbetweens.  you don't have to overthrow your gov't to take a stand with the community against your gov't.  And who cares what "they thought" of the constitution, this is just modern day reality of a gov't trying to take away something we have always had a right to.  Why now can they take them away because of violence that they themselves have created thru bowing to banks and corporations, sending our jobs oversees, creating black markets with no "territories" and poisoning it's people.

 

Plus it's about how the rest of the US feels to your cause.  They won't rush in and make martyrs of it's citizens if it can't spin it to make them out to be crazy.

Edited February 24, 2016 by Norby

[Norby]

At that time, militias were seen as the defense for the country, not defense from the country. I don't think it was the drafters who made the change, but the patriot movement. I think it is a really skewed perspective in a democracy, actually. One that leads to all sorts of social and political ills, but one that is all too easy to convince people of in this time of egregious government behavior.

Is that what we have?  A democracy?  I have a lot of evidence that it's actually a plutocracy(?). Basically corruption buys laws in this country.  Look for the getmoneyout.com campaign, it explains it pretty well about laws and popular public support.  Like I said, this isn't about the constitution this is about guns we have always been able to own becoming illegal and being taken away.  A fundamental right taken and property taken without compensation.  I don't think you need a constitution o see that something responsible for less than 2% of the gun violence in the US being taken away is flat out wrong. I think society would be much better if you took away cars and did public transport.  they are responsible for more deaths than all guns combined.  But you don't see me trying to get them banned.  I've had friends die from them too thru no fault of their own.  Not everyone owns cars and society is such that they are not needed.  But my grandfather and father ran headlong INTO bullets flying at them for the freedoms we are afforded and it irks me(for lack of a better word) that people would be so willing to give away other people's rights when tehy risked their lives for what we are afforded. 

I get my view on guns from police officers and border patrol and the military people I know in my life.  It's their duty to protect us and they have all told me I'm responsible for my own protection.  The military can't work in our own streets if we are attacked from inside and the police I've known say they can't be there to help and if any disaster abounds there aren't enough cops and they'd be protecting their own family.  People trample people for cheap tv's on black friday. What do you think will happen in a large disaster?  If you are prepared with water and food you may have to defend it, maybe from police trying to care for their family, maybe from looters, maybe from scumbags taking advantage of the lawlessness.  If you don't want to be able to protect yourself, stuff and family fine.  Don't try and take away my right to though.

[Highlander]

That they CAN NOT use on it's citizenry, hence the militarization of police.  Again, I'm talking defense from, not to overthrow.  But there are many inbetweens.  you don't have to overthrow your gov't to take a stand with the community against your gov't.  And who cares what "they thought" of the constitution, this is just modern day reality of a gov't trying to take away something we have always had a right to.  Why now can they take them away because of violence that they themselves have created thru bowing to banks and corporations, sending our jobs oversees, creating black markets with no "territories" and poisoning it's people.

 

Plus it's about how the rest of the US feels to your cause.  They won't rush in and make martyrs of it's citizens if it can't spin it to make them out to be crazy.

 

This is exactly why it is futile to try to apply the beliefs of our government forefathers in 1787 (and in 1791 with regard to the 2nd amendment) to the realities of today's world.  Hard-core proponents of the 2nd amendment focus on "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" but fail to offer any consideration as to the meaning of the prefix, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State."  if you're a constitutional purist, you can't separate one phrase from the other. 

 

When the Constitution was written and ratified, our forefathers didn't envision a strong federal government, let alone a federal military that would become bigger than all of the rest of the world's military might combined.  The idea of the US being the "police of the world" didn't occur until after the Spanish-American war and leading into WWI.  Before that, the US was pretty much isolationist, and we didn't have a need or want for a huge federal military force.  Something got lost along the way. 

 

It's pretty clear that the second amendment was designed to protect individual militias of the several states...protecting people who were simple farmers and might have to take their musket down from over the fireplace and fight for freedom, as most did during the revolution. 

 

We can run the 2nd amendment to the extreme...that ordinary citizens can own and use any weapon that the US federal government can use.  Under this theory, any citizen can own and use an F-14, napalm, and even nuclear bombs.

 

Where do you draw the line? 

[Norby]

OK, perhaps you are right, that the racist speech doesn't rise to the level of removal of constitutional rights, but what of direct threats, like "the government should be overthrown, and that's why I have my rifles," or "Obama needs a bullet in his head" and the like? Isn't that another level altogether?

 

And again, I was trying really hard to talk about this without lumping you into the group. I've never known you to advocate this type of thing outside of references to liberty and revolution (as in the quotation above), nothing directly advocating overthrow.

 

And to be clear, I do think our government should be overthrown. I just don't think we need guns, and I don't think guns will help us here in the US.

I'm pretty sure one of those is treason, maybe not though because they didn't say that they were the one to do it..  The gov't should be overthrown and that is why I have my rifles" I don't think rises to the occasion.  That's an It's just saying it should be overthrown, not that they'll do it.  Gotta be careful.  There is free speech and there is treason.

 

And you'll see how guns will help if you have to defend your land from teh gov't taking it.  Do you really think that the gov't couldn't come knockin on your door?  Maybe you don't have land but the gov't took 10 acres of my land before I bought it with NO compensation for moving the road(actually made it more dangerous, it used to be an L(90degree turn having to stop) now it's a c (blind corner) that they can maintain 60MPH around).  Now the govt owns 10 acres on the other side of the road.  Could have been mine and another lot across the road.  They just take things.  Maybe you'd think differently if it affected you.  I still had to pay according to the orginal 90 acres price even though I only got 80. 

 

Up until one of them got shot they got treated a LOT better than any protest I've ever gone too.  No one got maced, hogtied or sprayed with a hose.  I would much rather our gov't listen to us also but would never give up my protection.  I would also never use a weapon unless protecting myself, whether from an intruder or my gov't trying to move me off my land, taking away my right to assemble, my right to speak etc.

[Norby]

This is exactly why it is futile to try to apply the beliefs of our government forefathers in 1787 (and in 1791 with regard to the 2nd amendment) to the realities of today's world.  Hard-core proponents of the 2nd amendment focus on "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" but fail to offer any consideration as to the meaning of the prefix, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State."  if you're a constitutional purist, you can't separate one phrase from the other. 

 

When the Constitution was written and ratified, our forefathers didn't envision a strong federal government, let alone a federal military that would become bigger than all of the rest of the world's military might combined.  The idea of the US being the "police of the world" didn't occur until after the Spanish-American war and leading into WWI.  Before that, the US was pretty much isolationist, and we didn't have a need or want for a huge federal military force.  Something got lost along the way. 

 

It's pretty clear that the second amendment was designed to protect individual militias of the several states...protecting people who were simple farmers and might have to take their musket down from over the fireplace and fight for freedom, as most did during the revolution. 

 

We can run the 2nd amendment to the extreme...that ordinary citizens can own and use any weapon that the US federal government can use.  Under this theory, any citizen can own and use an F-14, napalm, and even nuclear bombs.

 

Where do you draw the line? 

I'm not a constitutionalist.  I'd draw the line on deciding when the technology comes out.  "assault rifles" have been owned since they came out.  Assault rifles are not 3 rnd burst and automatic. 

Personally I feel if we still had a progressive tax we wouldn't have to worry about this.

 

Nepalm is gas and soap.  Why would you want to ban either of those or them combined if someone isn't using it where it affects others.  One person can only use so much stuff.  My biggest fear is pipe bombs, possibly PVC so they can't be detected by a metal detector.  But no one is talking about banning gas or flour(yes flour is explosive) or fertilizer or pipes.  Again I'm against banning things.  If someone is amassing a store of weapons and bombs they can be watched.  You know police work where you try and figure someones intent rather than just making a victimless crime.  Why imprison someone with a grenade if he only ever wanted it for a paperweight?

 

And who said anything about use?  There are already laws that a bullet CAN NOT go across another property unless there is permission and I think that's a felony.  An f-14, really?  A nuke?  isn't spent reactor rods and radioactive material already banned/watched?  I think you are making this more complicated for effect at this point.  But ya as for using one, there is already restricted use, such as you can't fire a gun in the city of buffalo, i'm sure that would include IED's RPG's, etc.  Nevada though?  Well if Kidd Rock and Ted want to have some fun who am I to judge as long as they aren't infringing on others rights.  Your rights end where someone else's begin and I can see lots of room to own an assault rifle, even in the city as long as I'm not using it there.

[Highlander]

Perhaps I spoke to soon. No, I don't think it is a good idea or beneficial for people to defend themselves from the government in this way. I do see people around me having their rights violated every day, and am concerned about it for myself, too. I totally understand people that have feelings that they want to use violence on those that have done violence to them by way of the system. And yet still I'd choose for myself or anyone I loved the difficult road of "doing it the right way" in court.

 

I just feel that despite the abject brutality of court, it is better than the physically violent alternative.

 

Spot on.  We need to vote-in better judges.  This addresses the problem at its core.  The Egyptians showed us, during the Arab Spring, that peaceful protests against a tyrannical government  can work.  We just need a critical mass of people willing to stand up for their rights.  Complacency is the friend of tyranny. 

[t-pain]

i'm curious if anyone has any history (within the last 100 years) of armed people fighting the govt and winning in any way?

 

the only stories i think of are usually sad endings for those people who raised a gun towards the govt.

 

people forget waco texas already?

[Highlander]

I'm not a constitutionalist.  I'd draw the line on deciding when the technology comes out.  "assault rifles" have been owned since they came out.  Assault rifles are not 3 rnd burst and automatic. 

Personally I feel if we still had a progressive tax we wouldn't have to worry about this.

 

Nepalm is gas and soap.  Why would you want to ban either of those or them combined if someone isn't using it where it affects others.  One person can only use so much stuff.  My biggest fear is pipe bombs, possibly PVC so they can't be detected by a metal detector.  But no one is talking about banning gas or flour(yes flour is explosive) or fertilizer or pipes.  Again I'm against banning things.  If someone is amassing a store of weapons and bombs they can be watched.  You know police work where you try and figure someones intent rather than just making a victimless crime.  Why imprison someone with a grenade if he only ever wanted it for a paperweight?

 

And who said anything about use?  There are already laws that a bullet CAN NOT go across another property unless there is permission and I think that's a felony.  An f-14, really?  A nuke?  isn't spent reactor rods and radioactive material already banned/watched?  I think you are making this more complicated for effect at this point.  But ya as for using one, there is already restricted use, such as you can't fire a gun in the city of buffalo, i'm sure that would include IED's RPG's, etc.  Nevada though?  Well if Kidd Rock and Ted want to have some fun who am I to judge as long as they aren't infringing on others rights.  Your rights end where someone else's begin and I can see lots of room to own an assault rifle, even in the city as long as I'm not using it there.

 

I asked, "where do you draw the line?"  So where do you draw that line?

 

If Kid Rock or Ted Nugant want to go to the Nevada desert and have some fun shooting barrels full of water and watch them explode for some folly fun, who am I to judge?

 

I own a 10-acre property and was told by a previous owner of this land that he bought dynamite from the local hardware store to blast-out a drainage ditch in the 1960s.

 

The world changed on 9/11/2001

 

So blah, blah, blah....when do we stop insane people from mass killings?  Maybe we don't.

 

Malamute made a very-good post a few months ago about this.  His take was that if we want limited restrictions on firearms, then we have to accept that we are going to have some crazies killing people in mass shootings from time to time.  The cost of relaxed firearm laws is the death of kids in elementary schools.

 

I don't buy-into the catch phrase that "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."  This is just silly.

 

I recall an article in the Flint Journal about 30 years ago that documented a handgun stolen from a rightful owner in, I think, Grand Blanc Township.  The gun was traced to multiple crimes in Flint.

 

We have some very good data from the UK, Canada, and Japan.  These three countries have very strict rules on gun ownership, specifically handguns.  And they have seen deaths due to guns at about an order of magnitude less that what we see here in the US.  An order of magnitude....1,000 to 1.

 

Riddle me this?  Why does the USA see deaths due to guns much higher than many third-world countries?  Answer:  We have a lot of guns, and many of them fall into the hands of criminals.  The fewer legal guns we have, the fewer guns that can be stolen by criminals.  Get it?

[Highlander]

i'm curious if anyone has any history (within the last 100 years) of armed people fighting the govt and winning in any way?

 

the only stories i think of are usually sad endings for those people who raised a gun towards the govt.

 

people forget waco texas already?

 

Waco is a good example.  And before that, Jim Jones and the cyanide-laced Kool-aid.

 

Waco was a fiery mess.  The Jim Jones matter was simply a tragedy...sheep lead to slaughter. 

[Norby]

i'm curious if anyone has any history (within the last 100 years) of armed people fighting the govt and winning in any way?

 

the only stories i think of are usually sad endings for those people who raised a gun towards the govt.

 

people forget waco texas already?

Who said anything about winning?

[Greg Rx]

At that time, militias were seen as the defense for the country, not defense from the country. I don't think it was the drafters who made the change, but the patriot movement. I think it is a really skewed perspective in a democracy, actually. One that leads to all sorts of social and political ills, but one that is all too easy to convince people of in this time of egregious government behavior.

You are wrong about this and I think you know it.

Edited February 24, 2016 by Greg Rx

[Norby]

I asked, "where do you draw the line?"  So where do you draw that line?

 

If Kid Rock or Ted Nugant want to go to the Nevada desert and have some fun shooting barrels full of water and watch them explode for some folly fun, who am I to judge?

 

I own a 10-acre property and was told by a previous owner of this land that he bought dynamite from the local hardware store to blast-out a drainage ditch in the 1960s.

 

The world changed on 9/11/2001

 

So blah, blah, blah....when do we stop insane people from mass killings?  Maybe we don't.

 

Malamute made a very-good post a few months ago about this.  His take was that if we want limited restrictions on firearms, then we have to accept that we are going to have some crazies killing people in mass shootings from time to time.  The cost of relaxed firearm laws is the death of kids in elementary schools.

 

I don't buy-into the catch phrase that "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."  This is just silly.

 

I recall an article in the Flint Journal about 30 years ago that documented a handgun stolen from a rightful owner in, I think, Grand Blanc Township.  The gun was traced to multiple crimes in Flint.

 

We have some very good data from the UK, Canada, and Japan.  These three countries have very strict rules on gun ownership, specifically handguns.  And they have seen deaths due to guns at about an order of magnitude less that what we see here in the US.  An order of magnitude....1,000 to 1.

 

Riddle me this?  Why does the USA see deaths due to guns much higher than many third-world countries?  Answer:  We have a lot of guns, and many of them fall into the hands of criminals.  The fewer legal guns we have, the fewer guns that can be stolen by criminals.  Get it?

If there are already countries like you want......

And before that the biggest threat was someone blowing up a school.  No guns involved.  Largest violent attack on a scholl wa like 100 years ago and it was done by blowing it up.  The byproduct of psychotropic drugs is what we have with the school shootings.  Riddle me this, if these psychotropic drugs can cause thoughts of suicide why can't they cause thoughts of homicide?  Most of these shooters were supposedly on these drugs.  So we take away assault rifles, which weren't used in most of these assaults, and people use other things.  Well your not getting to the root of the problem and there is no way to get all the guns off the street so your just waiting for the next one to happen, quelling people's outrage by making more laws to make more victimless crimes meaning more criminals and more intrusiveness into your life.  cause they have to pull you over to catch you with a gun.  So now you are telling me we have to give up our right to privacy.  Then you'll say it's because of what he read that radicalized them and take away websites and books.  All for something that came about because of something OTHER than the guns because they were there all along.  So something else changed but you'll strip every right for that little sense of false security when it was the gov't banning drugs that led to the uptick in violence and it was copycats and psychotropic drugs that caused these mass shooting, and politicians nasty rhetoric, as in the planned parenthood shooter.  But go ahead take away my guns or make it harder for me.  It won't do you a bit of good though and it'll just get worse.  The US is not in any way like Japan(they have culture and shame), Canada(well they're all around pussies:) That's a joke, there's a lot of land and multi lingual cultures etc. lots of land and resources and open space, and they aren't the strongest country, etc. allthough I hear from my canadian friends it was getting much worse up there by way of american influence in politics, and whatever other country you talked about. 

  In those countries they don't hand out mood altering drugs like pez.  They aren't going thru a grab of wealth from the middle class.  There are a bunch of things different about those countries and us and they ALL contribute to the violence seen in the US.  Remove guns from people who would use them for defense and you are giving the upper hand to the gangs.  All the guns they use are ALREADY illegal.  They get them from teh black market.  Taking away guns and not taking away the reason for the violence will just leave the violence and illegal guns that are already there.  You should watch the documentary on guns in the us that talks about the repair shops in teh jungles of different countries, 3rd world countries with no where near the amount we have here.  It will show u that it's just like drugs with pistols.  They do crimes here and get smuggled to SA and then get used there for a while and then get shipped back to the US.  If a criminal wants a gun they will get it.  Same as drugs, why would you think it'd be any different?  Just saying I don't buy it doesn't fly, thosse countries are VERY intrusive or just aren't like the US.  In canada the gap between rich and porr isn't the same and they have programs and huge taxes that cover their healthcare etc.  The drug problem isn't as bad hence the gang violence isn't as bad.  Either way a lot comes down to culture, how much the gov't oppress', drugs.  It's not strictly guns because we didn't always have the same gun violence rate and since the 90's suicides have been on the rise and homicides and gun violence in general have been in decline.  So why we have to ban any guns when most people using them are either getting them illegally(just make it priority to go after guns, no need to ban anything) or already have them legally.  If someone shows violence who has never shown violence, what kind of law is going to help that?  What bigger better background check is going to help.  There are already lots of guns, too many to do anything about.  If you make them illegal they just go up in price and in a broke country they will not be turned in.  No one registered theirs in NYS.  If you try and ban them now it will bring it to a head and lots of people will die.  I would not want to be a cop in NYS trying to walk to someones house to take away a weapon.  I don't think any of the State Police would, they were all against the ban in NYS too.  They aren't stupid, they know vets who would not stand for getting their weapons taken away, some of them are those vets.  You really have to look at the problem, look at the gun nut websites.  I think that would be the straw.  Right now people can move to states that think like them, if they all tried, well they wouldn't it just wouldn't happen.

[Norby]

Perhaps I spoke too soon. No, I don't think it is a good idea or beneficial for people to defend themselves from the government in this way. I do see people around me having their rights violated every day, and am concerned about it for myself, too. I totally understand people that have feelings that they want to use violence on those that have done violence to them by way of the system. And yet still I'd choose for myself or anyone I loved the difficult road of "doing it the right way" in court.

 

I just feel that despite the abject brutality of court, it is better than the physically violent alternative.

When everyone thinks like you they will have accomplished their goal.

 

Spot on.  We need to vote-in better judges.  This addresses the problem at its core.  The Egyptians showed us, during the Arab Spring, that peaceful protests against a tyrannical government  can work.  We just need a critical mass of people willing to stand up for their rights.  Complacency is the friend of tyranny. 

Good luck with that.  We can't even get a couple people here to write a letter over the MMMA's interpretation or even get on teh same page for what we'll fight for.

[Norby]

Please describe in detail what part of my comment was wrong.

The right to bear arms WAS in part to defend against government.  If you look into all the letters from back then explaining their thinking you would see that.  I can't remember which players but a lot of them thought it.  They didn't want the fed gov't as big as it is as they knew it would lead to tyranny.

[Greg Rx]

Please describe in detail what part of my comment was wrong.

High school history. Who do you think the 3rd amendment was for, militias?

[t-pain]

Who said anything about winning?

winners write the history books.

[AmishRnot4ganja]

If people were serious about this "constitutional originalism" idea, wouldn't it then be true that citizens should only be able to possess firearms that were available at the time the second amendment was written? That would mean that only black powder guns would be legal.

[Norby]

winners write the history books.

Martyrs change the course of history. 

[imiubu]

on your topic, In United States history scalawags were Southern whites who supported Reconstruction and the Republican Party, after the American Civil War.

 

carry on

 

My comment was tongue in cheek grass

 

I can use the dictionary too  

[beourbud]

 

 

This ain't working. The only ones winning are the mass shooters and the Gun and Ammo ind.

 

I like guns, in the hands of legal, responsible and accountable citizens.

 

We should ban all sales and transfers of guns and ammo until the gun and ammo industry figures out how to Stop the Bloodshed.