Gun owner hypocrisy that needs to stop

M

MasterPieceArms.com

Moderator
Gun owner to government:

DON'T tell me what kind of gun I can have. DON'T smash in my door becuse I'm owning an "unapproved" firearm. DON'T go house to house taking people's guns. DON'T entrap gun owners on "technicalities." I'm a citizen and have rights to property and privacy. DON'T make the law vague and complex so that gun owners are trapped and prosecuted for owning gun B that is the same as gun A except for barrel length. Even though the law hasn't allowed me to have an unregistered machine gun since the early 1930s, I still consider it my right to own one, and the heavy handed federal government has no authority or jurisdiction to essentially invade my state and invade my home and force me to register MY property, let alone forbid me from owning something that they FORBID me to register. It is wrong and unconstitutional to prosecute a gun owner for being in "constructive possession" of a machine gun simply for owning PARTS to an M-16 AND a SEMI auto AR-15 at the same time. Gun prohibition does not work because criminals do not obey laws. Repeal gun laws that don't stop crime, which is 99% of them. The 2nd amendment to the constitution protects my right to own the gun of my choice. Government bans guns so it can have a monopoly on them. Government always compiles lists of citizens and then abuses that information. There should be an amnesty for people who have found grandpa's machine gun that he brought back from WWII but didn't register. I'm a member of 4 gun lobbies.





Same gun owner to same government:

DON'T legalize that plant. DON'T allow that plant to be prescribed for the sick and dying. KEEP pulling people over and searching for certain drugs. Yea, TAKE their house, that will teach them to sell something that was legal prior to the 1930s. If we RE-legalize drugs, especially marijuana, immediately, people will abuse them. We need to build more prisons to house these scumbags who buy, use, sell something that was legal prior to the 1930s. "No knock" warrants for drug law violators are AOK, because they might flush that plant/substance down the toilet and then how would we be able to pay $30,000 a year to house them in a federal prison? I see no problem with prosecting people for putting prescription meds in an unmarked bottle, or merely possessing a bottle labeled for someone else's prescription. The "drug war" is not successful but we can't stop now. Nowhere in the constitution is there a protection to own a plant like marijuana or a substance from a plant that I and the federal government don't approve of [even though the constitution is ALL about individual rights and property protection from government] Snooping on people's electric bills is acceptable because we HAVE to fight the "war on drugs." It's good when government agents arrest and prosecute people for having "drug paraphernalia," which yes, could mean almost ANYTHING, but hey, we HAVE to fight the "drug war" and we can't give up even though I admit it's unwinable, expensive, and actually a war on Americans. Don't tax and regulate marijuana/other drugs because addicts DESERVE to die if they use and adulterated/tained drug. Groups like The Marijuana Policy Project are just potheads and should be ignored even though they're fighting for the same rights to privacy and property ownership I am.
 
Im not quite sure what your getting at but let me ask you this one question.

Where in the constution does it say that people have a right to indulge in mind altering substances that is harmful? Cause I do know there is one that says we can own guns.
 
re: "mind altering substances that is harmful"

alcohol is just as bad or worse than crack or meth
but its legal
never seen anyone burn one and slap around their family

just get the munchies and get lazy:cool:
 
I've never seen an alcoholic try to get someone to take a drink, though.

Truth be known. I believe that the government needs to get out of the drug business. It should be legal, and the free market should be allowed to take care of the problem.

After a short period of time, insurance won't cover the expenses related to drug use. Civil courts will soon be deluged with wrongfull death and injury suits due to the drug use. The police will have new and innovative tools for determining driving under the influence charges. It'll be a Brave New World.

Oh, and under no circumstances should drug-related disabilities, injuries, or costs be paid for by the tax-payer. I'd also apply that to alcohol.

It wouldn't take long before the media was full of weeping idiots proclaiming that "he was a good boy", and decrying the fact that "nobody was gonna' pay for this." Pulling the plug on drug-users (including alcohol) would reduce our insurance premiums, our health care costs, and the drain on our tax dollars. Let me know when you've got a plan. I'm there.:D
 
You may want to legalize drugs but that has nothing to do with the Second Amendment. You are confusing personal responsibilities/freedoms with Constitutional rights. You have a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. There is nothin gin the COnsitution saying youhave a right to keep and use pot. Alcohol has been pointed out and for a brief period of time it was illegal. Both its bannign and re-legalization were handled through the Amendment process. If you want to Constitutionaly protect pot try to pass an Amendment but do not equate the two activities as equal in the eyes of the Constitution.
 
I've never seen an alcoholic try to get someone to take a drink, though.
Click to expand...
I have. Happened to me (a non-drinker) a number of times.
Where in the constution does it say that people have a right to indulge in mind altering substances that is harmful? Cause I do know there is one that says we can own guns.
Click to expand...
and
There is nothin gin the COnsitution saying youhave a right to keep and use pot.
Click to expand...
The Constitution says nothing about having sex either. Soooo ....
But don't forget:
Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Click to expand...
The Bill of Rights doesn't limit what you are allowed to do, it limits what the government is allowed to do.
Alcohol has been pointed out and for a brief period of time it was illegal. Both its bannign and re-legalization were handled through the Amendment process. If you want to Constitutionaly protect pot try to pass an Amendment but do not equate the two activities as equal in the eyes of the Constitution.
Click to expand...
Rethink that statement.
Alcohol was banned by Constitutional Amendment. Prohibition was repealed the same way.

You want to ban other drugs? Do it the way they banned alcohol - get the Constitution amended.
 
Where in the constution does it say that people have a right to indulge in mind altering substances that is harmful?
Click to expand...

*sigh* I addressed that about halfway through the "same gun owner to same government" section because I knew it was coming (and I knew it was coming because I've observed and studied the gun owner hypocrisy for many years as we've slid further into tyranny). Would you like an amendment that spells out your right to make a family? How bout an amendment that guarantees your right to cut your hair? Maybe an amendment affirming the right to breathe, I mean, after all, it's not SPECIFICALLY mentioned in there. :rolleyes: Obviously, I'm illustrating absurdity by listing absurd amendments. The founders secured liberty where the people were (and I mean were) sovereign. Asking "Where in the constitution does it say that people have a right to indulge in mind altering substances that is [sic] harmful?" illustrates perfectly how we have been conditioned to accept servitude.

Oh my stars, this appeared while I was writing my response:

Both its bannign and re-legalization were handled through the Amendment process. If you want to Constitutionaly protect pot try to pass an Amendment but do not equate the two activities as equal in the eyes of the Constitution.
Click to expand...
Sir, I don't know how you didn't notice this, but the very fact that NO AMENDMENT WAS PASSED to create prohibition part II (otherwise known as the war on americans possessing certain drugs) means that EITHER...

1. The constitution was overthrown by F.D.R. when he declared the federal corporation insolvent and proceeded to COMPLETELY reorganize it in favor of the creditors, OR...

2. Prohibition part II (the war on americans possessing certain drugs) is TOTALLY AND COMPLETELY ILLEGAL! OR...

3. All of the above.

Why in heaven's name would you logically tell me to get an amendment passed to "protect pot" when prohibition part II is ALREADY illegal and the courts ignore the constitution? The courts would have NEVER tolerated the so called "drug war" prior to 1933 without an amendment. If I need an amendment to reaffirm my right to possess a gall darn PLANT in my own home within one of the (formerly) sovereign states of the union, then the constitution is already toast. That is as bad an idea as when gun owners say we need ANOTHER gun rights amendment because the courts are ignoring the 2nd! When the courts are ignoring the highest law of the land, adding to it won't do any good. The solution is to RESTORE the constitution to being the highest law of the land!
 
Why do I have a scary visual of someone smokin a big spliff holding two MACs with a Hi Point stuck in butt crack baggy pants, lots of bling and baseball hat on backwards...Word!

WildpleasedontfeedAlaska
 
Thank you. Hypocrisy at this level is really disturbing. I've met a number of people who are either against gun control yet argue with me on the war on drugs. I've had one tell me how terrible marijuana is while drinking a beer.

And yes, to think that the Constitution needs to explicitly state that we have a right to put whatever chemical we damn well please into our own bodies goes against the very reason behind the bill of rights. Like it was said, the Constitution is there to limit the government's powers, not the people.

The war on drugs is one of the main reasons I can never, ever support the Republican party or any other that supports drug prohibition (including the Democrats). It's pure and blatant hypocrisy to claim that one should be allowed to protect their liberty with a firearm but that I shouldn't be allowed to indulge in that liberty by lighting up a bowl with my roommate before a round of Battlefield 2; good lord I want this boring work day to be over so I can go home and do just that.
disclaimer: hypothetically, of course. that statement should in no way be construed that I have ever in my life played bf2 or that I ever plan to.

My biggest problem is with the lies children are told. I certainly respect the rights of parents to raise their children as they see fit but to have public schools and DARE cops tell complete and utter lies about a chemical that, to date, hasn't even been assigned a verifiable toxicity level to the human body, is extremely disturbing. Yet come their 18th birthdays they can buy a pack of smokes and three years later legally take a drug that is so damaging to the human body that addiction to it is considered a disease.


Why do I have a scary visual of someone smokin a big spliff holding two MACs with a Hi Point stuck in butt crack baggy pants, lots of bling and baseball hat on backwards...Word!
Click to expand...

Why on earth were you at my house last Tuesday :confused:
 
Where in the constution does it say that people have a right to indulge in mind altering substances that is harmful? Cause I do know there is one that says we can own guns.
Click to expand...
Where does it say we can't?
 
Quote:
Where in the constution does it say that people have a right to indulge in mind altering substances that is harmful? Cause I do know there is one that says we can own guns.
Click to expand...

Where does it say we can't?
Click to expand...

The Constitution does not say what the citizens may or may not do, it places limits on the powers of Government. At the same time if the Constitution does not specifically limti the government's power to create a law regarding something they have every right to do so. Drug regulation falls into this category.

The Constitution says the right to keep and bear arms may not be infringed. It does not say the government may not infringe the right to use drugs or other items. Many laws were in place at the ratification of the Constitution in 1787 that were later "interpretted" by activist justices to be violations of imaginary constitutional rights.

Sodomy laws and later abortion laws are both technically legal according to a strict reading of the Constitution. We may not agree with those laws, and are more than welcome to change them through the legislative process, but by the writings of the Constitution the Government has every authority to establish such laws. To support the extension of imaginary protections within the Constitution through activist judcial decisions, regardless of whether we consider the end result "right," is a perversion of the system and will always subvert the autority of congress and the US Constitution.

Hipocracy on the part of gun owners would be to state that the Constitution protects the right to use drugs in the same way it does the right to keep and bear arms. Go read "Men in Black" by Mark Levin to really understand this issue.

Understand where I am coming from, I am a Libertarian and am all in favor of morons being able to pollute themselves right into the grave with items like tobacco, pot, opium, heroin and cocaine. As I see it it should be a personal choice to poison yourself. I understand though that this is my VIEW and only if enough people can be swayed to hold the same view can laws that outlaw such activities be revoked. That does not mean the existence of such laws are un-constitutional.

You cannot want judges to "create" rights for druge use that are not present in the Constitution and then be angry when their activist activities are used against a right you hold dear.

You can argue gun ownership/use and drug ownership/use are both moraly the right/responsibility of the individual but you cannot argue that they are both Constitutionaly protected.
 
Hear ye! Hear ye! Ye olde dogmatic church of grape koolaid Libertarianism is now in session.

Please form one line and pick up your kool-aid, your reefer or other dope of choice, and your paper hat. Have a seat. The prosletyzing will begin in a minute.

:rolleyes:
 
Musketeer, while you have a point that the hypocricy can't come in the same way because the Constitution doesn't state a right to drug use, it is in fact very hypocritical to demand the ability to protect one's freedom while denying others the right to enjoy that freedom.

I agree that the law are not unconstitutional, the point is that the laws are grossly unjust and do far more harm than good.

You talk of people poisoning themselves; do you drink?


MRex21, I find it strange that you would bash on the Libertarian party considering it's the only one with a truly solid stance against gun control.
 
Why do I have a scary visual of someone smokin a big spliff holding two MACs with a Hi Point stuck in butt crack baggy pants, lots of bling and baseball hat on backwards...Word!
Click to expand...
My neighbor probably heard me laugh at that.

For the record, I've never smoked anything, would go insane with low hanging pants, have no bling (unless you count this):


singleactionfs3809pj.gif

and can't stand hats. I DO however own enough MPA MACs to put one in every hand of several Ganeshes (that's the hindu god with all the arms right?)

Now HERE is a scary visual. BOO!

evilme0020010pc.jpg


This appeared while typing:
You cannot want judges to "create" rights for druge use that are not present in the Constitution
Click to expand...

Let's try this again. We don't NEED judges to create a right for me to possess a plant, that is part of the rights of personal liberty secured by the real heroes in Washington's army.

(BTW, Mrex is a professional Libertarian basher who I suspect works for the RNC or something. I'm surprised he hasn't pimped his anti Libertarian website. He probably will now and I encourage all to read the sophistry he shovels, intermixed with shallow mockery.)

At the same time if the Constitution does not specifically limti the government's power to create a law regarding something they have every right to do so. Drug regulation falls into this category.
Click to expand...
That sir is the exact OPPOSITE of what the founders taught and believed. Pleeeeeze go read the anti federalist papers (or even the federalist papers). Your argument is blown from the start because you don't clearly differentiate between the federal and state governments. YES, a state can ban/regulate drugs, HELLO, but the federal government CANNOT, hence the need for the ill conceived prohibition part I amendment. Holy smoke, also please read the 9th and 10th amendments because the founders were smarter than to try and list every damn right word for word when creating the VERY LIMITED federal government. Sheesh.
 
MRexx21, what exactly did I say that was in any way dogmatic. With rationality I stated why I saw the issues of Drugs and Gun Ownership to be separate in the view of Constitutionality. I even DEFENDED the governments right to regulate drug ownership and use as Constitutional. I believe the general precepts of Libertarianism, and stated as such, for others to see that I have no personal problem with what they choose to do to themselves.

The sad truth is Liberatians are far more devoted to the written words of the Constitution than either the Democrats or Republicans. Most that I know, while being very strong advocates for individual freedoms, would much prefer to bring such things as drug legalization and other issues such as abortion about through the legally defined methods of the legislative process than for an unaccounted expansion of the powers of the judiciary with no accountability. I see both Democrats and Republicans more than willing to bend the Constitution to fit their immediate needs far more often than I see such an option put forward by Libertarians. Both Democrats and Repubilcans seem to normally believe that if they feel something is right it must be Constitutional. Sadly they are both wrong. The Constitution is a framework we are meant to utilize in governing our nation through the very processes laid out within it.

Redworm, I have no problem with a consenting adult choosing to buy, sell or take drugs within the law. When the law says such activities are not allowed my stance is the law shouldbe changed through the legislative process. I may disagree on a personal level and think such activities are wrong for the individual but I believe it should be your right to do so and would back any legislation that affirmed that. I do not take illegal drugs. I do drink on occasion, although not to excess. I know that both activities are bad for one, but anything is bad depending on the quanitity. Drink enough pure water and you will destroy your kidneys... My opinion is the effects of drug use are far more devastating than that of alcohol consumption on the normal person. That is my decision, you may make your own but are responsible for the consequences just as I am if I drink.
 
MRex21, I find it strange that you would bash on the Libertarian party considering it's the only one with a truly solid stance against gun control.
Click to expand...

I find it strange that some people are so devoted to one issue so strongly. Yes, my gun rights are important to me, but my tax burden, my employment outlook, and my child's future are just as, if not more, important to me.

Let's repeat a phrase together; "The Totality of the Circumstances".
 
Masterpiecarms.com, you are coorect, I completely glossed over the issues of State vs. Federal rights. I am not unaware of them. This thread is becoming quite the tangled web and I was not going to throw the issue of state vs. federal into it. It was easier for the argument at hand to just refer to Government. You are coorect though in your designation of powers between both the state and federal authority.

Drugs, homosexuality, gambling, prostitution and all manner of other activities are items not coverred in the Consitution that I see as being in the realm of the state governments to manage through state legislation as long as it takes place within their borders.
 
I find it strange that some people are so devoted to one issue so strongly. Yes, my gun rights are important to me, but my tax burden, my employment outlook, and my child's future are just as, if not more, important to me.
Click to expand...

Actually I'm devoted to quite a few more issues. Gun control just seems to be the one that sticks out considering this is a gun related forum. Drug prohibition is another extremely important one, in my mind, because it's the root cause of much of the crime in our society as well as the unnecessary prison overcrowding that puts violent criminals back on the street while nonviolent potheads serve mandatory sentences. Plus it's a huge tax burden when it could instead be taxed to put money back into the hands of the law abiding as opposed to the criminals. Oh, and don't forget that drug prohibition also hurts your child's future since, again, so much crime is the result of the black market trading of substances that would otherwise cause very little crime in the first place.

Oh yeah, and your kid's being lied to by public school teachers are DARE cops. :)
 
dasmi

Where in the constution does it say that people have a right to indulge in mind altering substances that is harmful? Cause I do know there is one that says we can own guns.

Where does it say we can't?

So true, I used to do some drugs (Pot, Vitamin R (Ritalin), and Alcohol) in HS and I learned long ago that the war on drugs was based on lies. Things like pot and LSD should be legalised. Pot is less dangerous than tobacco and the "Withdrawal" is about as bad as caffeine.

/Only drinks now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top