Gun owner hypocrisy that needs to stop
- Thread starter MasterPieceArms.com
- Start date
Yes and no. All of what you hold dear is only safe as long as the government that you elect obeys the Constitution. I would be pretty comfortable in saying that any politician who would attack 2A rights through any means other than a direct Constitutional Amendment would have no problem stripping the people's protections from the governement on any other Constitutional issue through back door methods if it suited them. On that ground alone I can justify not voting for an anti 2A canditate who utilizes Constitutionaly subversive tactics. Of course if a pro 2A candidate violated Constitutional principals on other issues I would also oppose them.
Wildalaska
Moderator
Repeated
WildthemantraAlaska
Well unless the DARE information has changed since I heard it in high school, much of what you say will be lies. The whole "more dangerous than tobacco", "more addicting than heroin", "causes more accidents than alcohol" stuff that I heard was blatantly false and still is if it's continued to be told to children.
I respect your service as a police officer (my dad wore blue for over a decade) and I don't mean to insult your service or how you raise your child. I just don't like seeing authority figures like cops and teachers lying to children to scare them into avoiding something. I feel telling them the truth does a far greater service and keeps more kids clean.
I can understand that. Regardless of the perceived dangers of the substances themselves it's hardly deniable that the prohibition does far more damage in the first place.
With all due respect, do you drink? Going back to the topic of the thread, if you do then it's a good example of that hypocrisy, though not just among gun owners. I can understand why the original poster finds the statements coming from gun owners to be especially ironic; it just seems strange to demand the right to own the tools to defend your freedom while at the same time demanding that the freedom of others be restricted.
With all due respect, do you drink? Going back to the topic of the thread, if you do then it's a good example of that hypocrisy, though not just among gun owners. I can understand why the original poster finds the statements coming from gun owners to be especially ironic; it just seems strange to demand the right to own the tools to defend your freedom while at the same time demanding that the freedom of others be restricted.
Double Naught Spy
New member
That is just great. You claim it has to stop, and then offer zilcho for ways to make it happen.
FYI - since you are all caught up in freedoms, then don't tell us how we need to think or how we need to act.
Personal liberties secured by the real heroes in Washington's army? Check your history a little better. Many of the founding fathers were not in Washington's army. It is nice to know how easily you are willing to blow off mercenaries and Native Americans that provided aid to the Continental Army that were not a part of it.
Last edited by a moderator:
MasterPieceArms.com
Moderator
***takes a hit***
MasterPieceArms.com
Moderator
Jeez, how 'bout telling me what part of my history is INACCURATE.
I made it very clear through implication that education will make the hypocrisy stop.
Last edited by a moderator:
For starters, repeal any and all federal mandatory sentencing laws for drug possession convictions. Next, release any and all nonviolent drug offenders from prison that are incarcerated solely for possession and no other crime. Remove all federal restrictions on medical cannabis and immediately change the scheduling to allow any DEA certified physician to prescribe it for appropriate conditions. Lastly, allow pharmaceutical companies to start testing and producing medical grade marijuana. That's especially important because once medical grade regulations are in place to ensure the quality of the drug, it can be taxed and placed on the open market to start putting back the obscene amounts of money wasted to stop it in the first place.
An official apology from the government to all those hurt by the farcical war on drugs would give me a warm fuzzy feeling but I doubt we'll ever see that.
How's that for the starters of a solution? Once it's shown that decriminalizing and eventually legalizing a harmless plant isn't going to throw the nation into utter chaos like the repeal on alcohol prohibition did (oh wait...it didn't), then maybe we can start tackling the addiction on harder drugs as a public health issue instead of a law enforcement issue.
It's not perfect but it's a start. And it's a step in the right direction toward enjoying that liberty that the second ammendment is supposed to protect.
edit: I do hope I'm keeping this on topic...
Bullhocky.
The Libertarian (big L) party have always lost, and will always lose elections. They are viewed by and large as simply another kook 'third party' group. Better they should.
There are libertarian (small L) viewpoints that I agree to, but the whole drug thing, and the immigration thing I don't.
Basically, the whole Libertarian party are just a bunch of anarchists with a few capitalist tendancies.
Who needs them?
So MRex21 is saying the Libertarian party is not the only party with a solid 2A stance? Please offer proof.
I am a Libertarian. That does not mean I always vote Libertarian. If things are close I will vote the lesser of two evils unless they are both truly evil. Living in NY you see alot of that!
Libertarians have a real problem getting elected due to the fact they are uncompromising in their views. At least one group out there isn't compromising what they believe is right. They are also very fractured by their very nature of being anti-organization/establishment. But hey, a little revolution now and then is a good thing!
I would challenge anyone to analyze the views of the Libertarian party with respect to Constitutional issues and find another party closer to the precepts of our founding fathers. Some peopel have problems with the drug legalization. I don't care if it is legalized but I would still have my daughter's ass in a sling if I caught her with it. We do not need the law or government to tell us what is "right and wrong." That is especially true given the overall low morality of the majority of our legislators...
Libertarians have a real problem getting elected due to the fact that they are viewed as goonballs.
Better they should re-join the Republican party and bring it back to its conservative roots from within, instead of forming another splinter fringe group to siphon away conservative votes.
So you are just another 'do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do' hypocrite then? Hmm...sounds eerily like the Democrat platform. How can you claim to be a good Libertarian if you are unwilling to let your daughter have the 'liberty' to snort filth up her nose at whim?
Last edited:
I don't believe it is a valid comparison to put the freedom of guns and drugs in the same arena. One is a tool and the other is a product that is a mind altering substance.
Yes I have seen people who get a gun in their hands and go stupid but that isn't what the guns purpose is. Unlike drugs which the purpose is to alter your mind.
If you are trying to link the freedom of self protection with the freedom to screw up your mind then your gonna have to count me out. One makes sense and one is sensless.
My own personal feeling is that if you want to screw yourself up there should be conditions set so the rest of us don't have to pay for your choice. I don't care if you get drunk untill you abuse your family or drive. I don't care if you smoke pot but when your life goes to hell because of it don't come whinning to the public that we let you do it so we are to pay for your behavior, and stay off the roads.
Actually for those who are so self destrutive as to use that crap it's probably better they are on it. Natures way of culling us out when we aren't fit for society. Heck, I like people but you are not ever going to stop idiots from bad behavior nor should we have to pay for it.
25
Yes I have seen people who get a gun in their hands and go stupid but that isn't what the guns purpose is. Unlike drugs which the purpose is to alter your mind.
If you are trying to link the freedom of self protection with the freedom to screw up your mind then your gonna have to count me out. One makes sense and one is sensless.
My own personal feeling is that if you want to screw yourself up there should be conditions set so the rest of us don't have to pay for your choice. I don't care if you get drunk untill you abuse your family or drive. I don't care if you smoke pot but when your life goes to hell because of it don't come whinning to the public that we let you do it so we are to pay for your behavior, and stay off the roads.
Actually for those who are so self destrutive as to use that crap it's probably better they are on it. Natures way of culling us out when we aren't fit for society. Heck, I like people but you are not ever going to stop idiots from bad behavior nor should we have to pay for it.
25
You obviously have some reading comprehension issues. If you had read my posts you would know that I think the drugs that are currently illegal are poison. There is no contradiction or hipocracy in saying I have no problem with legalized drugs but would be opposed to my daughter or myself doing it. There are a great deal of things I have no issue with being legal but would not want to take part in.
I cannot understand people who believe it is up to the government to tell them what is right and what is wrong. Just because something is legal does not mean you should do it. Perhaps you feel that because gay sex is legal you should run out and do it. If the government tells you it is legal it must be good by your definition, right?
If you wanted to go to Vegas or Atlantic city and gamble away your life savings that is also legal. Would you care to go do that since the government says it is "good?"
Perhaps there are a great many other people out there like yourself who feel they need the government to tell them the difference between right and wrong. That sounds pretty sad to me.
You have an issue with Libertarians that defies logic. I will note it was you who cast the first insults. Those who have logic behind them need not lower themselves to calling the opposition names... much liek the Democrarts.
Why you believe the Libertarians should be a part of the Republican party is beyond me, except to get the Neo-Conservative politicians who seem to be in charge re-elected indefinitely. I am almost of the opinion it would be good for the Republicans to loose power. They have done hardly anything right since getting it and forgotten the principals that got them elected. The "contract with America" is nothing but a moldy corpse in the annals of history. Republicans, like Democrats, have no interest in reducing government, and their power as a result. Look at the growth under Bush in the government as an example. Perhaps loosing power would force them to re-evalute their current platform...
alcohol kills and ruins more ppl than anything
Alchohol doesn't kill, guns don't kill people do. I have seen enough of this even in my own family to assure you that it is true.
Alchohol is not the cause of damage to your family, just one of the tools abusers use to make it easier and give something the blame when they are done. Look to the abuser and not his tool, if he can't get help then get away.
25
Alchohol doesn't kill, guns don't kill people do. I have seen enough of this even in my own family to assure you that it is true.
Alchohol is not the cause of damage to your family, just one of the tools abusers use to make it easier and give something the blame when they are done. Look to the abuser and not his tool, if he can't get help then get away.
25
No argument here, but why don't we apply this logic to something that actually *is* protected under the constitution? Like, say, gay marriage.
Freedom of religion+right to due process= the state cannot legally protect the 'sanctity' of anything...especially from those whose behavior is not illegal.
All of a sudden the whole equation changed, huh?
Freedom of religion+right to due process= the state cannot legally protect the 'sanctity' of anything...especially from those whose behavior is not illegal.
All of a sudden the whole equation changed, huh?
Actually, the fact that the constitution does not specifically protect a right to use drugs infers that it has no right to regulate. Don’t forget that the constitution states that rights not specifically given to the feds are given to the states and the people.
The feds regulate drugs under there right to regulate interstate commerce, a provision that has been stretched far beyond the framers intent, just like the propitiation from cruel and inhumane punishment.
So it’s said that if you want to protect someone’s right to use drugs then you should get a constitutional amendment. Maybe if the feds want to regulate them they should get an amendment.
I point out that I have a passionate hatred of drugs, and yes I do include alcohol near the top of that list
The feds regulate drugs under there right to regulate interstate commerce, a provision that has been stretched far beyond the framers intent, just like the propitiation from cruel and inhumane punishment.
So it’s said that if you want to protect someone’s right to use drugs then you should get a constitutional amendment. Maybe if the feds want to regulate them they should get an amendment.
I point out that I have a passionate hatred of drugs, and yes I do include alcohol near the top of that list