Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Firearms Forums > Legal and Activism > ATF says no sales to medical marijuana users

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-01-2011, 04:12 AM   #11
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Papa_Woody's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 294
Liked 25 Times on 12 Posts

Default

Sweet. Sorry for jumping the gun. it's just one of those subjects I get heated about. Like guns, I feel pot should be left alone. Especially when the ones making the decisions on both have gains to be made by governing it, which is where government should keep out ( when it's an agenda thing and they hold the only gain)

__________________
Papa_Woody is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2011, 04:30 AM   #12
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
UrbanNinja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Philadelphia,Pennsylvania
Posts: 934
Liked 2 Times on 2 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Papa_Woody
Sweet. Sorry for jumping the gun. it's just one of those subjects I get heated about. Like guns, I feel pot should be left alone. Especially when the ones making the decisions on both have gains to be made by governing it, which is where government should keep out ( when it's an agenda thing and they hold the only gain)
No harm, no foul.

Some people may not agree with my opinion on the matter. But let me ask you this, this is basically the same idea being used in some states with receiving welfare.
Mandatory drug testing to decide eligibility. Although there are millions that truly need this government support, you still need to weed out the rotten ones, right? Why is this allowed but not the same with weapons?
__________________

Si vis pacem, Para Bellum.
"If you want peace, Prepare for war"

UrbanNinja is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2011, 04:33 AM   #13
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: China,ME
Posts: 125
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanNinja View Post
Unfortunately, maybe it should happen. With the chaos going on in this world anymore, I would have no objection allowing myself to be tested for these things. Would you?
Yes, I would object very vigorously. Do you really think that "the chaos in this world" is being caused by mellowed-out pot smokers?

Quote:
ou? As for the ones that illegally possess any form of a life threatening weapon and is caught should be mandatory life imprisoned. Perhaps this would set an example or at the very least lower such happenings. Of course it seems far fetched and nearly impossible but that is why we have thoughts and opinions right?
Was part of your message cut off? Something seems to be missing.
__________________
ttolhurst is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2011, 04:38 AM   #14
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Papa_Woody's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 294
Liked 25 Times on 12 Posts

Default

I like the drug testing of welfarees idea but in the same breath I dont consider pot to be a drug. So I find myself torn. And would be worried as all get out if my right to own a gun was determined by some doctors definition of sane...

__________________
Papa_Woody is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2011, 04:38 AM   #15
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: China,ME
Posts: 125
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanNinja View Post
But let me ask you this, this is basically the same idea being used in some states with receiving welfare.
Mandatory drug testing to decide eligibility. Although there are millions that truly need this government support, you still need to weed out the rotten ones, right? Why is this allowed but not the same with weapons?
Are you equating a fundamental Constitutional right with eligibility to receive government benefits? Would it be proper to condition your right to free speech, or freedom of religion, or freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, or freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, or your right to a jury trial, or your right to vote upon a satisfactory drug test?

If not, why not? If so, I find that prospect a lot more scary than "the chaos in this world".
__________________
ttolhurst is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2011, 04:46 AM   #16
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
UrbanNinja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Philadelphia,Pennsylvania
Posts: 934
Liked 2 Times on 2 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ttolhurst

Yes, I would object very vigorously. Do you really think that "the chaos in this world" is being caused by mellowed-out pot smokers?

Was part of your message cut off? Something seems to be missing.
No I dont believe it is caused by the mellowed smoker..unless of course you steal their munchies.

This is why im trying to explain there needs to be a separation somewhere. I have nothing against pot smoking at all. As I said..I used to smoke myself. I am saying that they should be given a chance to prove themselves worthy and not just be shut out. Ive personally known some very unstable people that were diagnosed with cancer and prescribed THC in pill form, amongst other medication for various things. So YES they should be denied a firearm BUT they should be given the opportunity to prove themselves stable enough to handle themselves in a situation while on drugs. Its the same as sayIng innocent until proven guilty.

I just want to see a deeper look into things, not just a quick judgement.

As for where my posting was cut off, im using my cell phone and cutting and pasting things are a bit difficult, it was part of another sentence.
__________________

Si vis pacem, Para Bellum.
"If you want peace, Prepare for war"

UrbanNinja is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2011, 04:53 AM   #17
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
UrbanNinja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Philadelphia,Pennsylvania
Posts: 934
Liked 2 Times on 2 Posts

Default

I dont think my point is coming across clearly and you dont seem to understand my side of things do to miscommunication. As I said earlier, its very hard to make a clear point with no emotion and tone of voice behind the words. Ill end it now and say no more.

__________________

Si vis pacem, Para Bellum.
"If you want peace, Prepare for war"

UrbanNinja is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2011, 04:54 AM   #18
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: China,ME
Posts: 125
Default

So, how will this work? Will doctors have to notify authorities when they have prescribed certain medications to patients, so the authorities can flag these folks in NICS and execute a search of their homes to locate and remove any firearms that the patient might already be in possession of? How will the patient "prove" that they are "worthy" of their gun rights? To whom must they prove it, and by what objective criteria?

I don't think you appreciate what a can of worms you are proposing.

__________________
ttolhurst is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2011, 05:03 AM   #19
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: China,ME
Posts: 125
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanNinja View Post
I dont think my point is coming across clearly and you dont seem to understand my side of things do to miscommunication.
Actually, I think I understand your point very well. There was a time when I had very similar thoughts. I was very young and very naive at the time, and actually thought that a beneficent government made up of kindly and wise experts would have the ability to identify the truly dangerous folks while ensuring that the rest of us retained our rights.

Then I grew up.
__________________
ttolhurst is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2011, 05:21 AM   #20
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
UrbanNinja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Philadelphia,Pennsylvania
Posts: 934
Liked 2 Times on 2 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ttolhurst

Actually, I think I understand your point very well. There was a time when I had very similar thoughts. I was very young and very naive at the time, and actually thought that a beneficent government made up of kindly and wise experts would have the ability to identify the truly dangerous folks while ensuring that the rest of us retained our rights.

Then I grew up.
In no way do I lay all of my trust in government. I am just saying there could be an up side to some extant. I do also believe it violates the constitution. Which is why I said I am on "both sides of the fence". I was not trying to point fingers directly at prescription medication users. My thoughts are simply just take another step into background investigation. Even if it were to make the slightest dent on the situation, its still a step forward. If I relied solely on government, I wouldn't be a gun owner myself.

If it came down to a doctor reporting to government that he has prescribed a medication to a potentially dangerous person and that person was investigated and eventually had their already owned firearms removed, then just maybe they may ave prevented an unfortunate situation. If they can decide a parent whom once was a good parent is now unfit to care for a child and remove the child from a potentially harmful situation, why not with a potentially dangerous person with a gun? If every person, legally or illegally was mentally stable, then you and I wouldn't need to carry our weapons would we?

Fact of the matter is that you haVe your opinion and i have mine, just remember that half of my opinion agrees with yours, im just trying to think outside the box a bit and say "what if?"
__________________

Si vis pacem, Para Bellum.
"If you want peace, Prepare for war"

UrbanNinja is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
For the anti and pro marijuana people. skullcrusher The Club House 30 10-20-2011 08:48 PM
Medical Marijuana OK in Some VA Clinics......... IGETEVEN Politics, Religion and Controversy 10 10-19-2011 11:37 PM
marijuana?? bizy The Club House 157 12-15-2010 01:59 PM
Authorities discover 30 tons of marijuana, border tunnel gregs887 Politics, Religion and Controversy 5 11-05-2010 04:00 AM