Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by mrm14, Sep 30, 2011.
ATF: Illegal to sell guns to medical marijuana users | Great Falls Tribune | greatfallstribune.com
The BATFE is enforcing a law banning the use of an illegal substance. That law was passed by the US congress and signed by POTUS. They're supposed to do that.
I came across this article the other day also. I seem find my thoughts on both sides of the fence with it.
AGREEMENT: there are some moronic people out there that can barely function while sober, now you're handing them a government manipulated drug which may contain who knows what other chemicals spliced into it. Now you've got some space cadet running around shooting at leprechauns and pink elephants.
NON-AGREEMENT: on the other hand you have people that truly need this "medication" to deal with whichever disease it has been prescribed for. This person still has as much right to defend themselves,family and home as anyone else (legally) does.
There would be some type of governing around the situation such as, annual testing to ensure safe use of a weapon while using the "medication". I can completely understand if they were to put a ban on receiving a CCW license, just not to completely deny a person with a legitimate purpose and and complete non violent, record free background.
What's with the scare quotes? These patients have legitimate prescriptions from their physicians for a legitimate drug to treat a medical condition.
What other legitimate medications do you think ought subject a person to these restrictions? Antidepressants? Tranquilizers? Sedatives? Where does it end?
I dont deny that..but can you honestly say that there isn't ones that abuse it?
In some cases there should restrictions with these as well. Some may suffer from a stronger form of issues than others but should still have the chance to prove themselves stable or not.
I am not damning or praising anyone that uses any form of medication.. simply questioning the ability to function in a life threatening situation while under the use of any medication.
Let's assume that some do. Therefore, we should infringe on the rights of the many who do not?
Perhaps you are right. But I don't think you've gone far enough. The ones we really have to worry about are those that aren't medicated. They could be running around with Zeus-knows-what kinds of unmedicated psychological conditions, *and* possessing guns. Everyone not currently under medication should undergo a psychological evaluation on a regular basis to ensure that they are stable enough to satisfy the government. Don't you agree?
Seriously? Pink elephants and leprechauns? That's a pretty ill description of a pot smoker. It's not LSD. Reefer madness really got to some people.
I enjoy a good joint. Stepped back from the whiskey a few years after my Tour of duty and I found that pot could relax me without wounding my judgment the way the bottle did. It's better than the zombie drugs the VA hands out.
We don't ban gun sales to people who drink and you are far more likely to find a drunk person all pissed off waving a gun around than someone who just smoked a joint.
Just sounds ignorant.
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?
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?
I think this was misinterpreted. Which is easy to do in text with no tone of voice behind it. I apologize for misleading.
I spent many years as a toker myself(5 years sober next month). Im not taking aim at someone that can properly function. My using of the leprechaun and elephant was more of an exaggeration. Pretty much saying that you do have people with psychological problems as well as, lets say cancer.
Once again im neither with nor against it. Im torn because I dont think they should just deny people because they smoke marijuana, but just take a deeper look into them before passing judgement.
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?
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.
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...
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".
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.
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.
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.
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?"