General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsShould pot smokers be allowed to own guns?
There is much talk about mental health screening for gun ownership. I just happened to read a Pennsylvania mental health/gun purchase bill that lists all the people who would be disqualified. It includes marijuana users. I suspect that is typical.
Should pot smokers be allowed to own guns?
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)Paul E Ester
(952 posts)I never understand the logic of turning an "unjust law" that applies to a minority into a "just law" because the "unjust law" is applied to equally to everyone. Now we have injustice for everyone.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)...I was just making a point.
Paul E Ester
(952 posts)I think I used to think your way, embrace the suck. Now days I make a conscious decision to embrace freedom.
Should we cheer a hypocrite lawmaker getting arrested for an UNJUST law?
GOP Assemblyman accused of pot possession
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2512126
Should we cheer a hypocrite lawmaker getting arrested for an UNJUST law?
WIDE STANCE WEASEL: Larry Craig Attempts To Use Campaign Funds For Sex Scandal Legal Defense
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2497187
Hell no, we should cheer the repeal of those bullshit laws, and give a break to anyone caught up in them.
Autumn
(45,120 posts)I don't see a big difference there.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Sort of like how people slobber all over violence but freak right the fuck out if there's a nipple on tv.
Bay Boy
(1,689 posts)It's not the one in my town.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
fact of the matter is, people can fucking buy them. Relatively easy. While we throw cancer grannies in prison for smoking pot. THAT is the point, jack.
Bay Boy
(1,689 posts)...accuracy isn't important as long as you get your point across.
I guess that's ok with me.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Gee, never seen that tactic before.
Oh, and by the way:
http://www.thenation.com/article/171808/how-walmart-helped-make-newtown-shooters-ar-15-most-popular-assault-weapon-america
Peter cotton
(380 posts)Why wouldn't Walmart sell it?
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Whereas the big shiny "popular rifle" that Adam Lanza used to mutilate a room full of 6 year olds, well, that should be celebrated.
Peter cotton
(380 posts)As for AR-15s being "celebrated", there are certainly forums and magazines devoted to them, just as there are forums and magazines devoted to virtually all weapons, be they handguns, rifles, shotguns, tanks, warships...there are far more such devoted to small arms, of course, an AR-15 being somewhat more practicable to own than an aircraft carrier.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Which is a little disconcerting given that it's totally ludicrous for "home defense" much less hunting. In fact, as near as I can tell, the main rationale for owning them (other than "we like them", which is at least intellectually honest) is that the AR-15 owners need the big guns to protect them from the gub'mint when the gub'mint comes to take their big guns.
But it's ludicrous, because the government will always have a bigger gun. But rationality isn't the strong suit of the Alex Jones crowd.
Peter cotton
(380 posts)As for hunting, an AR-15 in its most common chambering (5.56x45) is a perfectly good small game rifle, and a marginal deer rifle. If chambered for larger cartridges such as 6.8 SPC, .300 Blackout, or .50 Beowulf, an AR15 can be and regularly is used for larger game up to and including elk and bear.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)has been well established; your mantra chant to the contrary, this modular platform is the new utility rifle, yet is based on a century-old technology. Frankly, even if the AR 15 were to somehow be "banned" (it has never been by fed law), and despite the flash-bang of the 94 AWB, a new modular rifle type will come about like a hydra head. Gun controllers will again face the "need" for another ban.
This kind of skin shedding has happened before as regards civilian "rearmament." It's not a shotgun in the corner, or a .38 in the nightstand anymore, and hasn't been for some time.
You read Alex Jones much? I don't.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)angel823
(409 posts)exactly.
Angel in Texas
Bay Boy
(1,689 posts)...I commented that they don't sell AR-15s at my walmart and all you needed to say is that they do sell them at some Walmarts.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Bay Boy
(1,689 posts)...you don't ever need to chill out.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)And that event ripped my heart right the fuck out of my chest, and permanently demolished my own shameful long-term silence (based upon political "reality" on the topic of reasonable gun control.
And a reinstated AWB, and limitations on high capacity clips, are reasonable IMHO.
Son of Gob
(1,502 posts)Number of posts: 503
Number of posts, last 90 days: 496
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=173696
I don't understand why they don't create new accounts. Keeping track of 7 year old email addresses and usernames seems kinda pointless, it makes it even more obvious that they're trolls when they start posting furiously after no posts in the first 7 years.
madville
(7,412 posts)AR-15 rifles and high capacity magazines were and are still available under the federal and almost all state assault weapons bans.
klook
(12,171 posts)I'm all ears.
madville
(7,412 posts)Mental illness, the war on drugs, violence glamorized in entertainment (movies, tv, bideo games and music), no jobs, no opportunity, the cycle of poverty in inner cities, etc.
Assault weapons account for 5% of shootings, shotguns roughly another 5%. Why is no one proposing handgun restrictions that address the bulk on gun violence?
It's not that hard to see that the AWB as we know it is not effective at limiting gun violence since it addresses the appearance of the firearm and not the overall function. It allows the millions of existing ones to stay on the streets and the new ban compliant models that come out are easily modified to pre-ban configurations because criminals and mass shooters don't follow the law.
I'm just saying the way they go about restricting assault weapons is not effective and done from a PR standpoint. It makes no sense to waste time on a worthless law, put some teeth in it and make it actually work.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Principle, right?
madville
(7,412 posts)It's stupid to reignite the "Democrats want to ban your guns" fury again if the law is this same rehashed crap addressing physical appearance and with all the grandfathering leaving tens of millions of weapons and hundreds of millions of high capacity magazines in circulation.
I remember the first AWB, high cap magazines were sti available, they cost $20 instead of $8, due to the restriction on new ones. Then of course everyone with law enforcement buddies got them to get them for them since that protected class is exempt and doesn't follow the law either.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)And the people who want to believe "Democrats want to ban your guns" are going to believe that no matter what.
I am sympathetic to political reality arguments; it is for those reasons that gun control, or gun legislation, was a back burner for me for a long time. And I didn't want to see 1994, ever again.
But I can't be silent anymore about it. And I have to believe that an AWB can be crafted that will make a difference. Same with ammo clips; even making them more expensive might be a deterrent.
madville
(7,412 posts)Is they are metal, plastic, and/or wood. Very easy to modify and that is what is wrong with the AWB in the past and proposed form. Anyone wanting to buy a ban compliant rifle can easily change it to a pre-ban configuration in a matter of minutes with legally sold cheap parts. Someone about to go on a shooting spree isn't concerned about legality at that point.
A high capacity magazine ban won't prevent much since it's so easy to modify many ten round versions back into high capacity versions. We're talking about steel and plastic, both fairly easily to fabricate and modify.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)The gun people shouldnt mind the ban, if it wont do anything.
klook
(12,171 posts)Exactly how I feel..."ripped my heart right the fuck out of my chest." God DAMN it.
I'll be working the rest of my life to change this, as long as it takes.
"I am all the parents in New Town." Very well said.
ladjf
(17,320 posts)pot smoker was a mass shooter.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)duh
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)that gun owners be mandatory teetotalers in the gun control debate. Handling or using firearms while intoxicated is another matter.
As marijuana use should be legal everywhere in any event, the flat answer is "Yes."
On edit: I meant "No" in the unedited reply in the sense that it should not be treated any differently from gun owners who drink alcohol, but the subject line of the OP made my initial reply confusing, as it seemed I was saying pot smokers should be prohibited from owning firearms.
Nika
(546 posts)As shown in this news still from an incident when troops from the 1st BN, 12th CAVthe battalion in Vietnam in 70-71made national news for being filmed smoking pot through a shotgun barrel.
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)I'm curious to see who would be excluded.
I'm more scared of "sane" people that decided they want me dead than someone w/ various mental illnesses. Also, someone w/ a mental illness face the same threats everyone else faces, if not more, so they should be able to defend themselves. Also there are situations where someone does have a mental illness but w/ combination of medication and treatment they are just as fine as anyone else, should it be a lifetime ban?
One, where I would draw the line isn't considered a mental illness, I believe, is sociopaths shouldn't have access to guns.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)The bill is Pennsylvania House Bill 521. Sorry I don't have the link, but it shouldn't be too hard to find.
A license shall not be issued to any of the following:
(i) An individual whose character and reputation is such that the individual would be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety.
(ii) An individual who has been convicted of an offense under the act of April 14, 1972 (P.L.233, No.64), known as The Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act.
(iii) An individual convicted of a crime enumerated in section 6105.
(iv) An individual who, within the past ten years, has been adjudicated delinquent for a crime enumerated in section 6105 or for an offense under The Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act.
(v) An individual who is not of sound mind or who has ever been committed to a mental institution.
(vi) An individual who is addicted to or is an unlawful user of marijuana or a stimulant, depressant or narcotic drug.
(vii) An individual who is a habitual drunkard.
(viii) An individual who is charged with or has been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year except as provided for in section 6123 (relating to waiver of disability or pardons).
(ix) A resident of another state who does not possess a current license or permit or similar document to carry a firearm issued by that state if a license is provided for by the laws of that state, as published annually in the Federal Register by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms of the Department of the Treasury under 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(19) (relating to definitions).
(x) An alien who is illegally in the United States.
(xi) An individual who has been discharged from the armed forces of the United States under dishonorable conditions.
(xii) An individual who is a fugitive from justice. This subparagraph does not apply to an individual whose fugitive status is based upon nonmoving or moving summary offense under Title 75 (relating to vehicles).
(xiii) An individual who is otherwise prohibited from possessing, using, manufacturing, controlling, purchasing, selling or transferring a firearm as provided by section 6105.
(xiv) An individual who is prohibited from possessing or acquiring a firearm under the statutes of the United States.
(xv) An individual who has failed to obtain firearm liability insurance as provided under subsection (e.1).
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)The part about "not of sound mind" seems much more vague than I originally imagined. That, among other reasons, is why I hope the bill fails.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)very similar to the marijuana language in Form 4473. I remember hearing the conversation the guy in front of of me had with the gun shop counterman when he questioned the pot provision and was told he had to check no or he couldn't be approved. He thought and said:
"I've been out for a month, so I guess 'no.'"
They both laughed, and the sale went through.
Why does everyone want to pick on the mentally ill, and not provide due process?
madinmaryland
(64,933 posts)Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)madinmaryland
(64,933 posts)dairydog91
(951 posts)- "You gonna take the shot?"
- "Dude."
- "What?"
- "Dude, do you realize that this scope...just this scope...is made of billions and billions of molecules, man? And that each of those molecules could contain a little universe?"
- "Woah. That's deep."
pangaia
(24,324 posts)Finally an intelligent statement.
I've been tryin' to think of what to say to this thread... Can't beat that, man.
Have another toke...
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)pangaia
(24,324 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)pangaia
(24,324 posts)the light gets there before the sounds.. so... it's like, man the light has no sound. man. It's just. there. man..
bowens43
(16,064 posts)Exactly
Lint Head
(15,064 posts)KansDem
(28,498 posts)SammyWinstonJack
(44,130 posts)The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)and we should be afraid of each other.
Those people...we can trust them the most....
Paul E Ester
(952 posts)Question E. - Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?
Note: Alcoholics are exempt.
If you use marijuana you have to lie about this question to legally purchase a weapon from a FFL.
We could enforce this by creating a registry of medical marijuana users, cross reference it with gun registrations and send the cops to disarm them.
Drug testing every applicant to close this dangerous loophole.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)I posted the list of exclusions upthread.
The Pennsylvania list, however, includes "habitual drunkards."
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)but if you lie on form 4473 then it is an illegal gun pruchase.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)This one does:
gollygee
(22,336 posts)around guns.
1-Old-Man
(2,667 posts)if there is one thing on the face of this good green earth that I hate it a sniveling drunk, and it comes on them a lot sooner than they think.
Logical
(22,457 posts)a bowl of pot want to start a Band!
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)eom
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)firearms purchase/possession, too.
I think some of these restrictions have more to do with punishment of 'law-breakers' than anything.
Could it be the case that the willingness to break the law evidenced by smoking pot is actually the thing that is the threat, not the effect of the pot?
kudzu22
(1,273 posts)"Are you a user of illegal drugs?" Marijuana is still an illegal drug under federal law (WA and CO state laws notwithstanding), so the current answer is "NO".
Now, should they be? I would tend toward saying yes, they should be allowed, providing that pot becomes as legal as alcohol.
Iggo
(47,577 posts)RedCappedBandit
(5,514 posts)petronius
(26,606 posts)should not disqualify you from anything at all - just like alcohol.
I strongly oppose the active use of firearms (including carrying) while impaired by any substance, and would support a law treating that behavior similarly to driving while impaired, but I think that at least the Brady Act should be amended to exclude pot...
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)I think that is the more appropriate question.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)backscatter712
(26,355 posts)olddots
(10,237 posts)that's logic and science....Science Bad !---- Logic is Satan's work ! Knowledge Bad ! All Hail Sarah !
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)+1
Crepuscular
(1,057 posts)There should be parity with alcohol laws. Neither should be allowed when hunting, using a gun or carrying concealed, though.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)This includes medical pot users.
ATF letter on the issue (.pdf): http://www.nssf.org/share/PDF/ATFOpenLetter092111.pdf
madville
(7,412 posts)That a bunch on here will argue that federal gun laws should be the law of the land. Then another group finds it horrible the Feds enforce federal marijuana laws. They either have authority everywhere or they don't, can't cherry pick.
I think both should be left to the states if no interstate commerce is involved. Grow your pot in your yard and smoke at your house, that is the state's jurisdiction, buy a gun made in your state that doesn't leave home, no federal jurisdiction.
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)Think about it, if you are required to take a hit off of a joint how likely are you going to be to want to shoot someone after that?
ladjf
(17,320 posts)HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)It has nothing to do with PA.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)See what you started, now?
As has been mentioned here, after a toke or two who would want to shoot anybody.
Therefore, POT should be mandatory for everyone over---ummm ....ohh--- 13 maybe.... I'd say 3 to 10 tokes per day would do it, depending on age, weight,tolerance and tendency towards violence.
gopiscrap
(23,765 posts)demwing
(16,916 posts)coldmountain
(802 posts)spanone
(135,900 posts)In_The_Wind
(72,300 posts)limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)What would be the reasoning to take guns from pot smokers?
Wouldn't you have to produce some evidence that shows pot smokers are dangerous with guns?
And that they were relatively more dangerous than beer users? Which is laughable.
I doubt there is any such evidence and this is just being done because people are prejudiced against drug users.
mike_c
(36,281 posts)A) I'm a pot smoker.
B) I don't own guns. Never have.
C) Ergo, I don't give a rat's buttocks one way or the other.
D) Whose turn is it to fill the bowl?
Frankly, I'm happy with just about any reg that decreases the number of gun owners. So I'm all for banning pot smokers like myself from owning firearms. I'd be among the first to turn mine in, except, um, I don't have any.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)pot smokers, at least in colorado and washington, should certainly have the same rights and privileges and responsibilities as beer drinkers.
XRubicon
(2,212 posts)Seriously, no.