Best way to restore the 2nd amendment

V

Vermont Carry

Moderator
End the war on americans possessing CERTAIN drugs.

I believe it's really that simple. If "no knock" alleged "warrants" are allowed to be ok for someone with the wrong plant, then government won't hesitate to come after you for some violation of ABC gun law.

When we end government home invasions, mass roundups with entrapment, and filling up the gulags over "unapproved" plants and substances owned by adults, then we'll have CREDIBILITY and strength to end government home invasions, mass roundups with entrapment, and filling up the gulags over "unapproved" rifles in california, all pistols in chicago, pistols in D.C., and firearms that happen to fire more than once with a single trigger pull.

[Click on pic to go to the equivalent of GOA/NRA for ending the war on americans]


 
When we end government home invasions, mass roundups with entrapment, and filling up the gulags over "unapproved" plants and substances owned by adults, then we'll have CREDIBILITY and strength to end government home invasions, mass roundups with entrapment, and filling up the gulags over "unapproved" rifles in california, all pistols in chicago, pistols in D.C., and firearms that happen to fire more than once with a single trigger pull.
Click to expand...

Golly where am I living, I thought the gulag was across the Bering Strait 20 years ago? Was wondering why all the neighbors are gone. :)

WildwhatsillyhyperboleAlaska
 
Well up there, you can possess that plant that scares the federal government as much as you owning a rifle that can shoot more than one round with one trigger pull.

It's been kind of amazing over the years to watch alaska go "vermont carry," then at the SAME time have a governor who is absolutely rabid about REcriminalizing a plant. I followed his extremist efforts for quite some time in utter amazement at the hypocrisy. He signs "vermont" carry, then wants to send the storm troopers through your door if you have an "unapproved" plant. :confused:
 
I see you are new here. For a quick refresher, this is a forum dedicated to the advancement of responsible gun ownership. Pushing a message of legalizing weed has no place here.
 
The first guns laws were based on the laws restricting the ownership of marijuana. The two go hand in hand, and both equally infringe on our rights as Americans.
 
Bender, that is so, but this is not the place to be pushing legalization. I sets a bad image for this board-and by extension gun owners.
 
You don't think these issues are linked?

Gangs, etc. make money from drugs being illegal. Ask the Kennedy's how they made their money, illegal liquor.

Anything that is illegal creates a thriving black market, and elevated prices. View paying 3000 dollar for a Mac 10 that is worth 300 dollars, just because it's full auto.

The government thrives on the illegal drug trade, giving them job security. They haven't done anything to really try and stop it, I.E. close the borders. Guess it's our was of stabilizing Columbia, and other countries, with successful
infusions of American money, by the illegal drug trades.

Frankly, the BATF was created to attack the Mafia, also funded by illegal liquor, and, drugs, and prostitution.
It's day is long since past, and, it should really be put to rest.

We have many government agencies who's purpose is to address illegal products, and, legalizing them would
reduce taxes, destroy the trade for them in general, and stop creating criminals.

When prohibition was put to rest, it didn't destroy the United States. Likewise, if illegal drugs are made legal, it would not destroy the US. Sure, we'd have junkies, just as we do now. Not much would change, other then huge government agencies would now have no reason for existence, and, many gangs, and mobs, would have to find
other means of funding their endeavors.

Many of the cases that established precedent, created by judges, in the name of 'the war on drugs', would be moot, and, their effectiveness destroyed. The case in Kali, that allowed the search of a safe in a car, based on drugs, would be useless. The many cases, that allow entrapment, and violations of the Constitution, to enter a person's house, based on flimsy evidence, and no warrant searches, most often based on drug and gun related charges, would also be moot. Likewise if all the
state and federal regulation on firearms was put to rest.

The entire concept of the founders of our government was to limit both Federal and state government regulation. The reason to limit the regulation, was to prevent the growth of government agencies, that, as they do now, threaten our freedom, seeking to enforce new regulations.

The founders had the right idea; one seriously lost on our current government.

S
 
Excellent post Socrates, very to the point. Someone has been watching the history channel.

Despite all that, legalization of marijuana is not something that I-and I would bet the majority of the members and mods-want to be represented on this board.
 
Despite all that, legalization of marijuana is not something that I-and I would bet the majority of the members and mods-want to be represented on this board.
Click to expand...

Then maybe you'll go get their opinions for us instead of speaking for them?
 
I see you are new here. For a quick refresher, this is a forum dedicated to the advancement of responsible gun ownership. Pushing a message of legalizing weed has no place here.
Click to expand...
That is a very arrogant, condescending attitude, and rather elitist in the way it was presented. Clearly you don't have much substance with which to disagree with my point. I was very clear how the two are linked, and other posters have further clarified that, I think you just don't want to HEAR it.

It's "pro gun" folks like you who enable the government aggression aginst gun owners because you encourage government aggression against others WHILE AT THE SAME TIME wanting government to leave YOU alone.

WSM MAGNUM: personal liberty and personal RIGHTS to property have EVERYTHING to do with the second amendment. The fact that you don't see that is rather chilling, and I made this thread with the intent to bring this problem out in the open.

Bender, that is so, but this is not the place to be pushing legalization. I sets a bad image for this board-and by extension gun owners. --rhgunguy
Click to expand...
WOW, at least you're honest that "image" matters more to you than correct and CONSISTENT principle.

rhgunguy-I respectfully ask you to stop misstating my position. This is NOT a thread merely about "pushing legalization" as you keep saying. This thread is about LIBERTY and how to put an end to arbitrary, abusive government if we ever hope to preserve our right to chose the firearms we wish to own.

Who said that quote, something to the effect that "if you wish to enjoy liberty, you must be willing to allow your neighbor his liberties" or something to that effect.
 
Focusing on the 2nd Amendment instead of the BOR is going to eventually lose all your liberties. Letting the .gov decide what is or isn't good for us is going to bite us all in the butt. All these "certain" drugs have a legal equivalent in the pharmaceutical trade. Can anyone name one that doesn't?
 
Is this thread about the repeal of drug laws? Is it about the usefulness of the BATF? Is it about infringements on the Second Amendment?

All three? Then the spread of discussion is too broad.

Regardless, I'm invoking Godwin's Law (Gulags? Gestapo!?? (look it up)) and closing the thread.

Vermont, if you wish to discuss one of the issues separately, then open a new thread specifically on that topic and that topic alone. And please avoid references to Nazism and Communist Russia. They don't add a thing to the discussion, rather they take all credibility out of it.
 
In an impassioned appeal by Vermont Carry, I have re-opened this thread.

Vermont, let's look at your originating post, shall we?
If "no knock" alleged "warrants" are allowed to be OK for someone with the wrong plant, then government won't hesitate to come after you for some violation of ABC gun law.
Click to expand...
First off, warrants are either lawfully issued or they are not. There is nothing "alleged" about them. Whether or not they are issued as "no knock" warrants is almost besides the point.

The Supreme Court of the U.S. has said that in certain cases, they (unannounced and forced or dynamic entry) are a valid mechanism by which Law Enforcement may serve the warrant. Doing away with some or all of the restrictive drug laws will do nothing to change that situation. No-knock warrants will still be with us.

Secondly, the government will still come after those who violate the gun laws, regardless of the drug laws being in effect or not. Conflating apples and oranges is not a valid argument.
When we end government home invasions, mass roundups with entrapment, and filling up the gulags over "unapproved" plants and substances owned by adults, then we'll have CREDIBILITY and strength to end government home invasions, mass roundups with entrapment, and filling up the gulags over "unapproved" rifles in california, all pistols in chicago, pistols in D.C., and firearms that happen to fire more than once with a single trigger pull.
Click to expand...
A rather convoluted sentence that in its simplest, attempts to restate what the first paragraph stated. Apples and Oranges.

Home invasions? Again, lawfully obtained and issued search warrants are not home invasions. Do I personally like no-knock warrants? No. But the area of attack here is to change local policy. That is achieved through political action on the city council and county commission level. Once local policy has been changed as regards no-knock warrants, then one has the credibility to attack at the State, then finally, at the national level.

This is the same false tactic the Libertarian Party has used for years. You don't effect change at the top, then work downwards. You effect change at the bottom, where it is most controllable, gain credibility, and then work upwards.

Mass Roundups? Where? When? Cite, please?

Entrapment is an entirely different legal issue. While there are stated rules to follow in avoiding entrapment, there is no bright line. Each case is judged on its own merit, or lack thereof. So...

Mass roundups with entrapment? Again, cite? Or are we just being inflammatory?

Unapproved? This is an appeal to emotion. A false argument. The items in question are not simply "unapproved," they are unlawful to possess. Illegal, not unapproved. Do we now discuss the specific laws and differentiate between mallum prohibitum and mallum in se? Or are you arguing that all mallum prohibitum laws are unconstitutional?

Gulags? Are you saying that all prisons in the US are run as Communist Gulags were run in Russia? This is another example of the appeal to emotion. As is the picture of the BATF as Gestapo Storm Troopers. They are inflammatory by their very nature. They suggest that our country is some abhorrent mixture of Stalinist style communism and Nazism. Is that what you really think of our system of government? That is the insinuation.

The one thing you have not done, except by hyperbole and association, is to actually make a case that getting rid of the drug laws would necessarily get rid of the gun laws.

So lets get rid of the emotional arguments, the hyperbole and make some honest arguments that actually connects the two together. How does ridding the one affect the other?

Can you actually discuss this on an adult and rational level? Your move, Vermont Carry.
 
Since so much of the gun violence and illegal gun traffic is a direct result of the criminalization of drugs, I think it's a valid topic on this board.
 
Get rid of the nonsense

and we might take you more seriously.

The first guns laws were based on the laws restricting the ownership of marijuana. The two go hand in hand, and both equally infringe on our rights as Americans.
Click to expand...

Patently false and blatantly absurd. The FIRST gun laws were those REQUIRING adult males to possess arms for the common defense.

The NEXT wave of gun laws were to bar slaves (later, freed blacks) from owning guns, the better to terrorize, subjugate and dispossess them.

The THIRD wave was urban gun control, about a century or so ago. It was designed to disarm the immigrants forming gangs, not to mention memories of the Draft Riots in Boston and New York and Haymarket Riot in Chicago.

Misrepresentation of history aside, much of the more recent anti-gun legislation is driven by high-profile killings; the assassinations of 1968 gave us that Federal gun control law; Patrick Purdy, the Luby Massacre, etc. gave us the "Assault Weapon Ban" and its state copies in places like Massachusetts and California.

While drugs created gangs and gang wars just as the prohibition of liquor did, and certainly helped create an anti-gun climate, it is not the be-all and end-all of anti-gun sentiment. The "War On Drugs" has also eroded the Fourth Amendment at least as badly as the Second, if not more so.
 
mthalo,

Can you explain how gun violence and illegal gun traffic is a direct result of the criminalization of drugs?

I don't get that.
 
Bud,

The criminalization of drugs (and the resulting enormous profit) has put the drug trade in the hands of very violent criminal organizations. Much of the gun violence is a result of that trade.

How many inner-city shootings are the result of drug gangs fighting over turf? How many others are the result of addicts trying to get the vast amounts of money needed to feed their habits?

My personal belief is that if drugs were decriminalized and the drug trade taken out the hands of the gangs, the amount of gun violence would be greatly reduced.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top