# Not Just Picking a Fight



## bushidomartialarts (Feb 17, 2011)

So I've noticed something in the political discussion lately, and - as the title says - I'm not just picking a fight. I'm honestly interested to hear what folks have to say. 

It seems like many of the people who are against the legalization of marijuana are also against gun control. (This is not a new observation, I know). Both issues are value decisions: I'm for legalization of marijuana and against gun control because I believe our personal freedoms outweigh the extra societal safety banning both would provide. I also understand folks who are for gun control _and_ the continued ban of marijuana.

The following statistics are from the CDC: 
Deaths per 100,000 population due to gunfire: 10.2 for the US as a whole.
Deaths per 100,000 population due to marijuana (direct and indirect): <1.

So how can marijuana be too dangerous to allow in our society, but stricter gun control isn't worth it?

Again, I'm not (just) picking a fight. Inconsistency isn't necessarily a bad thing. I find it's our inconsistencies that tell us the most about our values.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 17, 2011)

bushidomartialarts said:


> So how can marijuana be too dangerous to allow in our society, but stricter gun control isn't worth it?



One is a civil liberty. One is not.  Nothing to do with relative danger.

Also, if you want to discuss relative danger, tell me how many times a man armed with a joint has stopped his family from being robbed or murdered?  There are stories every day of people armed with guns who do so.  So if we're going to talk 'danger', then let's tell the whole story.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Feb 17, 2011)

Bill (and somehow I knew you'd join this thread)...the civil liberty argument is a good one. There isn't a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the "right to fire up a righteous spliff."

I'm not sure I agree with the self-defense argument, though. Armed men do sometimes stop muggings, but more armed men _commit_ muggings. And, although accidental firearm deaths aren't as common as some would have us believe - I haven't read about a single case of a man dying because his doobie went off while he was cleaning it.


----------



## girlbug2 (Feb 17, 2011)

The armed men who commit muggings are the ones carrying illegal firearms (mostly). That wouldn't be stopped by stricter gun control.


----------



## Big Don (Feb 17, 2011)

bushidomartialarts said:


> Bill (and somehow I knew you'd join this thread)...the civil liberty argument is a good one. There isn't a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the "right to fire up a righteous spliff."
> 
> I'm not sure I agree with the self-defense argument, though. Armed men do sometimes stop muggings, but more armed men _commit_ muggings. And, although accidental firearm deaths aren't as common as some would have us believe - I haven't read about a single case of a man dying because his doobie went off while he was cleaning it.


Exceedingly few legally owned firearms are used in crimes. Only illegally owned marijuana is used in crimes...


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Feb 17, 2011)

Big Don said:


> Exceedingly few legally owned firearms are used in crimes. Only illegally owned marijuana is used in crimes...



Well put.

However, far more legally owned firearms are responsible for deaths...and yet they are legal while marijuana is not.

It's also worth noting that the accurate statement is that Exceedingly few legally owned firearms are used in crimes _by their legal owners_.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Feb 17, 2011)

girlbug2 said:


> The armed men who commit muggings are the ones carrying illegal firearms (mostly). That wouldn't be stopped by stricter gun control.



True, but how does "no need for stricter gun control" equate to "strong need for banning a demonstrably less dangerous substance"?


----------



## Big Don (Feb 17, 2011)

bushidomartialarts said:


> True, but how does "no need for stricter gun control" equate to "strong need for banning a demonstrably less dangerous substance"?


How does making new gun control laws = repealing drug laws?


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Feb 17, 2011)

That's the point of my thread. I'm not advocating for new gun laws. I'm against *both* gun control and the banning of marijuana. It just seems odd to me that somebody would be for one, but against the other.

So I'm curious how people deal with the apparent contradiction...


----------



## Big Don (Feb 17, 2011)

bushidomartialarts said:


> That's the point of my thread. I'm not advocating for new gun laws. I'm against *both* gun control and the banning of marijuana. It just seems odd to me that somebody would be for one, but against the other.
> 
> So I'm curious how people deal with the apparent contradiction...


Oh, I see, this is the same kind of dumb question, like, "How can someone oppose abortion and be for the death penalty."
OK.


----------



## Sukerkin (Feb 17, 2011)

I was going to enter into this thread but I think I'd better stick a 'nudge' in instead, with my Mentor hat on.

Bushido is making an honest question and doing so politely.  Let's give him the courtesy of answers in a similar timbre.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Feb 17, 2011)

In fairness to Big Don, questions like this do carry a strong risk of devolving into wankery. Although in the years both he and I have been on this forum, I'd think I would have earned better than that.

The question isn't meant in an aggressive "how could you (you idiot)" way that such things are often intended. As I said in the original post, exploring inconsistency can tell us a lot.

For example, Bill's assertion that the constitution promised us guns, not weed, is interesting and valid. I find that sort of stuff fascinating, and I'd love to hear Big Don's (who has posted many wise thoughts over the years) thoughts.


----------



## Big Don (Feb 17, 2011)

A point of view that supports the rule of law, is not inconsistent. Marijuana is, by federal law, illegal, privately owned firearms are not.


----------



## Archangel M (Feb 17, 2011)

I can't get all "fired up" over a discussion about comparing legalizing a recreational plant that you smoke to the necessity of being able to own one of the most powerful equalization of power implements ever devised and made available to the "common" man.

You can live without one, you may very well die or be subjugated without the other.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 18, 2011)

bushidomartialarts said:


> The following statistics are from the CDC:
> Deaths per 100,000 population due to gunfire: 10.2 for the US as a whole.
> Deaths per 100,000 population due to marijuana (direct and indirect): <1.
> 
> So how can marijuana be too dangerous to allow in our society, but stricter gun control isn't worth it?



I did not have an opportunity to reply in full last night, as I was on my way to the dojo.  But I also wanted to make note of another issue implicit in your argument.

We do not base our laws on the relative risk or damage or cost in money or lives done by the activity in question.  This makes the comparison moot.

If we did, then it would also be perfectly legitimate to demand that people stop eating junk food, stop smoking, and begin exercising immediately.  Because heart disease, which is largely preventable, is the number one killer, bar none.

We could certainly ban alcohol, which kills both directly and indirectly in large numbers.

On a lesser risk, but also clearly identifiable, we could legally ban all sports which carry the risk of serious injury or death.

In other words, if we based our system of laws on identifiable risks to life and limb, we'd be forced to live in a society in which personal choice and responsibility for one's actions are subordinate to the state's need to protect us from ourselves and to protect taxpayers from the costs associated with people's legal but risky choices.

We don't live in that world - by choice.  Our laws do not reflect the relative danger to our health or well-being, but our desire to order our society as we see fit.  This means that some people will find things legal which they believe should be illegal, and other things will be illegal which they believe should be legal; but so long as civil rights are not violated, the people still have the right to override the will of the minority in such cases.

Call it the tyranny of the majority if you must, but the alternative would be the tyranny of the minority; on balance, I'd prefer that majority rule, even when I'm not in favor of the rule in question.

Yes, guns kill more people than marijuana.  That is unfortunate, but it is irrelevant to the question of whether or not either ought to be legal.  Eating blowfish, I am told, also kills a lot of people; but in a society such as ours, the question is not the lethality, but whether or not society thinks people ought to be able to make such choices regarding their own lives.

I will add this; your argument will gain more weight as we begin the process of moving into a more socialized medicine system.  Under any private insurance scheme, a person can at least theoretically remove themselves from any insurance pool that forces them to bear the cost of people who make poor choices regarding their health.  Under a state scheme, the citizen has no choice and must pay for the poor choices of others.  This, many argue, give society the right and the duty to regulate the conduct of others in order that costs be kept under control.  In other words, we'll soon see laws amended with regard to the relative cost to society, and your argument will have more validity.


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 18, 2011)

Both are intolerable incursions into our freedom of bodily integrity.  Neither can be justified rationally from a rights standpoint, although it _is _easier to do so with gun control.  However, one issue is associated with one branch of the political spectrum, and the other issue is associated with the other branch.  Thus, one will be justified and one will be opposed, depending on the political views in question.  It was ever thus.

Political views and positions are more about emotional needs than they are about rational and consistent applications of principle.  The widespread response to these two issues demonstrates that amply.


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 18, 2011)

I look at it like this:

Its easy to argue for and against things like Pot, Booze, etc... those are issues that we deal with in society that have no realy protected status.

IMO Anyone who argues *for* Gun Control needs to also throw away other Consititionaly protected liberties.  Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, Freedom from State Regulation of your Religion, Womens Right to vote etc... those are all covered by the same protected status.

Despite arguments to the contrary, the Second Amendment is VERY CLEAR.  "The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed" 

_*"Shall Not Be Infringed" *_

Not, "Shall Not Be Infringed unless someone is afraid of what might be done with a gun or a knife by someone using it in a criminal way" or "Shall Not Be Infringed unless your state decides to" or not "Shall Not Be Infringed if we don't like the number of foreign made parts on the weapon" etc...

People make the false argument "But Zombie, we restrict other rights all the time, you can't just yell "Fire" in a crowded theater" or "your right to swing your arm ends where my face begins"  but those, however, are false arguments.

I absolutely CAN yell "Fire" in a crowded theater, and if the theater is on fire, I might be a hero.  I wont be jailed for it.  HOWEVER, if I yell Fire in a theater that is not on fire and cause mayhem and harm, I can be charged with that.  This equates with Gun ownership in the following way.  I can own a firearm and its perfectly legal, as long as I dont use said weapon to commit a crime there is no argument needed. If I do, then I face penalties for commuting that crime with the weapon.  

The same applies to swinging my arms.  If I smack you in the face intentionally and maliciously, then I have committed a crime; if you walk into it and its genuinely an accident, I did not... in neither case the act of swinging my arm was restricted, rather the results of my doing so and my intent.  

Those false arguments do not hold up when it comes to second amendment issues. 

Pot isn't protected.  Booze isn't protected.  The right to bear arms is.  Sucks if you don't like it, but that's the way it is.


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 18, 2011)

Oh, and FWIW, I am for the legalization and taxation of Pot.  I'm not on opposite ends of the argument, I believe in both.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 18, 2011)

Cryozombie said:


> Oh, and FWIW, I am for the legalization and taxation of Pot.  I'm not on opposite ends of the argument, I believe in both.



I think you made some excellent points, even if I'm not for the legalization and taxation of pot.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Feb 18, 2011)

Cryozombie said:


> The same applies to swinging my arms. If I smack you in the face intentionally and maliciously, then I have committed a crime; if you walk into it and its genuinely an accident, I did not... in neither case the act of swinging my arm was restricted, rather the results of my doing so and my intent.


 
Not to nitpick, but if you're swinging your arms around on a sidewalk or somewhere that risks injury, you could be nailed for battery, even if you didn't have any intent to harm. Just sayin'.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Feb 18, 2011)

Cryozombie said:


> People make the false argument "But Zombie, we restrict other rights all the time, you can't just yell "Fire" in a crowded theater" or "your right to swing your arm ends where my face begins" but those, however, are false arguments.
> 
> I absolutely CAN yell "Fire" in a crowded theater, and if the theater is on fire, I might be a hero. I wont be jailed for it. HOWEVER, if I yell Fire in a theater that is not on fire and cause mayhem and harm, I can be charged with that. This equates with Gun ownership in the following way. I can own a firearm and its perfectly legal, as long as I dont use said weapon to commit a crime there is no argument needed. If I do, then I face penalties for commuting that crime with the weapon.


 
You make a good point, but I think you're being a bit misleading (inadvertently) in how you summarize the arguments. When people make these arguments about restricting other protected rights, they're not dependent upon destructive end results, they're dependent on the justifications for the limitations. For example, the first amendment is pretty straightforward in its wording too, but there are still similar limitations placed on one's freedom of speech, where such limitations are justified. 

Let's take your yelling fire example. Assume for the moment that you do yell fire in a crowded theater where there isn't one, but nobody falls for it. No stampedes for the exit, nobody getting crushed or suffering a heart attack. There's been no harm, and thus you really couldn't be held liable for anything, yet the justification for restricting the right to yell fire is still there. Freedom of speech in this situation remains protected BUT NOT absolute, regardless of whether actual harm occurs. 

Regulations on gun ownership work the same; the question is whether such individual regulations are justified. Thus, the arguments are not false because they point out that even the highest protected rights (freedom of speech on one hand, gun ownership on another) can be limited; the protection is not absolute.


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 19, 2011)

You may be right.  I'm not a lawyer, but it always seems that the results of the action are what is prosecuted, not the action itself... although I suppose the point could be made that charging someone with Disturbing the Peace or Malicious Mischief for yelling fire and no one reacting could be construed as a restriction on the speech... *shrug*


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 19, 2011)

Cryozombie said:


> You may be right.  I'm not a lawyer, but it always seems that the results of the action are what is prosecuted, not the action itself... although I suppose the point could be made that charging someone with Disturbing the Peace or Malicious Mischief for yelling fire and no one reacting could be construed as a restriction on the speech... *shrug*



You are correct.  Its not a crime to yell fire in the theater.  Its a crime to disturb the peace or incite a riot.  If you yell Fire and everyone laughs then nobody's peace was disturbed and its not a crime.  You yell fire and people jump up screaming trying to leave then you have disturbed them and now its a crime.  Same if you yelled fire and you were the only one in the theater its not a crime because nobody was disturbed.  The act of saying fire in itself is not a crime.  You can say FIRE FIRE FIRE all you want its the disturbance of others thats a crime and you dont need to say fire for that you could yell Crayons and the same charge would apply.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 19, 2011)

As for Marking Marijuana legal well I have never been told 1 good argument for why its status should be changed.  All I ever hear is well you can drink beer and thats worse, or Marijuana is safe it never hurts people, or lets tax it it will save the economy.  All of which except the last I have seen for a fact to be false.  I also believe the tax thing will also prove false over time.  Ive been to Murders that occurred over a $20 bag of weed, Fatal Car accidents where the only drug found in the drivers system was Marijuana, Ive seen family's destroyed over Marijuana.  Every crack head and heroin addict I have ever interviewed started by smoking Marijuana as a kid.  Ive know friends growing up that smoked weed all day dropped out of school and 2 of which are in prison and none of them are what I would call productive members of society.  I also see right now how many kids drink alcohol because it legal for adults they always say whats the big deal officers its just a beer my parents drink and ill be 21 in a few years.  I can only imagine the same attitude when Marlboro starts selling Prepackaged Joints.  How can we look kids in the face and tell them they should not smoke Marijuana when they sell it legally at 7-11.


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 19, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> A Ive been to Murders that occurred over a $20 bag of weed, Fatal Car accidents where the only drug found in the drivers system was Marijuana, Ive seen family's destroyed over Marijuana.



Yeah but... I've seen murders committed over shoes and Cell phones, is that a valid reason to outlaw them?  I've seen fatal car accidents where NO drugs were in anyone's system, and I've seen families destroyed over sex.  

I think the only point you are making, is that things can be triggers?



ballen0351 said:


> Every crack head and heroin addict I have ever interviewed started by smoking Marijuana as a kid.  Ive know friends growing up that smoked weed all day dropped out of school and 2 of which are in prison and none of them are what I would call productive members of society.



By the same token, I know numerous "pot heads" that don't do crack or heroin, so saying "if you smoke pot you will move onto something else" is probably dichotomy of sorts.  I also know several "prominent" citizens who smoke pot, and they hold down professional jobs and maintain families.  



ballen0351 said:


> I also see right now how many kids drink alcohol because it legal for adults they always   How can we look kids in the face and tell them they should not smoke Marijuana when they sell it legally at 7-11.



How can we look kids in the face and tell them they can't smoke a Marlboro either, since they sell them legally at 7-11.


----------



## Steve (Feb 19, 2011)

Anyone who claims to be in favor of less government intrusion and identifies themselves as anything resembling a libertarian who is also in favor of prohibition on marijuana is a hypocrite.

It's really that simple.  'Oh, government is bad.  Oh, they'll take my guns when they pry them from my cold, dead hands.  Oh, marijuana is BAD.  M'kay?"  Hypocrites.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 19, 2011)

Cryozombie said:


> 1)Yeah but... I've seen murders committed over shoes and Cell phones, is that a valid reason to outlaw them?  I've seen fatal car accidents where NO drugs were in anyone's system, and I've seen families destroyed over sex.
> 
> I think the only point you are making, is that things can be triggers?
> 
> ...



I wish I knew how to break up quotes I just cant figure it out Im computer Stupid so Ill number your points and reply.

1)I was not saying Marijuana is the only reason for murders and accidents I was responding to the argument that always comes up in thiese topics that "Marijuana never hurts anyone" "Marijuana is safer then a Beer", "Noone ever dies from pot"  Ive seen Murders happen over .38 cents Murders happen for all types of reasons and even no reason at all but you cant say Marijuana has never hurt anyone.  There are Major drug wars going on over Marijuana.  Ive been to Marijuana eradication classes and have seen pictures of Marijuana fields in US National Parks booby-trapped with Military land mines and hand grenades.  So its not harmless.

2) I also never said everyone that smokes pot moves on to other drugs I said most people that are on other drugs will tell you that they started smoking pot in school and it played a part in them moving on to Crack, Heroin, ect.  I am a Narcotics Detective so I interview users and dealers almost daily Ive been doing this for years and have interviewed 1000's of people most all have the same story.  Now I know Marijuana is not the only reason but it helps.
I alway hear that "I smoke Pot and I have a good job or Im productive member" line also. Well in fact your not your a criminal leading a criminal life so your not a productive member.  How much more productive could you be if you didnt smoke pot.  You obviously dont care about yourself or your family if your will to risk it all over a joint because most of these so called productive peoples jobs would be in trouble if they were ever caught buying Marijuana. So your will to throw it all away for a hit.

3) you proved my point look how many teenagers smoke now because its so readily available Should we now add Marijuana to the mix?


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 19, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> Anyone who claims to be in favor of less government intrusion and identifies themselves as anything resembling a libertarian who is also in favor of prohibition on marijuana is a hypocrite.
> 
> It's really that simple.  'Oh, government is bad.  Oh, they'll take my guns when they pry them from my cold, dead hands.  Oh, marijuana is BAD.  M'kay?"  Hypocrites.



So you are in favor of getting rid of laws outlawing Crack, heroin, prostitution, Drinking and driving, and all the other Govt intrusions on our lives too right?


----------



## Steve (Feb 19, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> So you are in favor of getting rid of laws outlawing Crack, heroin, prostitution, Drinking and driving, and all the other Govt intrusions on our lives too right?



I've never alleged to being a libertarian or railed against government intrusion.  How about you?  Only when convenient.  Right?

Regarding any argument you're making, it's another case of selective memory.  Can we just link to the other thread and save everyone a lot of time?


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 19, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> I've never alleged to being a libertarian or railed against government intrusion.  How about you?  Only when convenient.  Right?
> 
> Regarding any argument you're making, it's another case of selective memory.  Can we just link to the other thread and save everyone a lot of time?


Great way to not answer the question
Ive never claimed to be a Libertarian either.  I believe what I believe some libertarian views, Conservative views, and I'm sure I have a Liberal view someplace inside me on some topics.
 I believe the Constitution says I have the right to have a gun but I've read it a few times and Ive never seen the right to smoke a joint anyplace in there perhaps you can show me that section.   The OP asked a question I answered it feel free to link anything you want if it floats your boat.


----------



## Steve (Feb 19, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> Great way to not answer the question
> Ive never claimed to be a Libertarian either.  I believe what I believe some libertarian views, Conservative views, and I'm sure I have a Liberal view someplace inside me on some topics.
> I believe the Constitution says I have the right to have a gun but I've read it a few times and Ive never seen the right to smoke a joint anyplace in there perhaps you can show me that section.   The OP asked a question I answered it feel free to link anything you want if it floats your boat.


It clearly struck a chord.  You're being very defensive.  

For the rest, it's all been well documented in another relatively recent thread.  Not avoiding a question.  Just refusing to answer it again, pretending that it has never been addressed before.  That's a waste of my time (and yours).


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 19, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> It clearly struck a chord.  You're being very defensive.
> 
> For the rest, it's all been well documented in another relatively recent thread.  Not avoiding a question.  Just refusing to answer it again, pretending that it has never been addressed before.  That's a waste of my time (and yours).



I'm not defensive I answered your post. You called me a hypocrite and I answered you I dont label myself a strict libertarian. I believe we do need some laws as a society.  However I believe the laws need to follow the constitution.  The constitution says I can have a gun so Im against any laws that go against the Constitution.  I see nowhere in the constitution that gives me the right to smoke pot.  So that choice is then given to the people to decide and the people decided to make it against the law and I see no reasons to change that law.  If the people decide to change it and make it legal then so be it but I don't think they will be ready for the consequences.  
I have no problems answering your questions but you seem to not have an answer for mine because they go against your argument.


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 19, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> Anyone who claims to be in favor of less government intrusion and identifies themselves as anything resembling a libertarian who is also in favor of prohibition on marijuana is a hypocrite.
> 
> It's really that simple.  'Oh, government is bad.  Oh, they'll take my guns when they pry them from my cold, dead hands.  Oh, marijuana is BAD.  M'kay?"  Hypocrites.



While I agree with the Hypocritical sentiment 100%, you just can't use it with Guns/Pot because Guns are a Right, pot is not.  But there are plenty of other examples that do work.


----------



## crushing (Feb 19, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> Anyone who claims to be in favor of less government intrusion and identifies themselves as anything resembling a libertarian who is also in favor of prohibition on marijuana is a hypocrite.
> 
> It's really that simple.  'Oh, government is bad.  Oh, they'll take my guns when they pry them from my cold, dead hands.  Oh, marijuana is BAD.  M'kay?"  Hypocrites.




Most often on this site the government intrusions that people seek to curtail are those of the federal government.  Those people may still be in favor of prohibition, but believe that there is to be any prohibition that it should be done at the state and local governments.  Because these discussions often revolve around national laws and not at the state or local levels, those people may appear to be libertarian.

Steve, I think I do understand where you are coming from because we have seen the hypocrisy of which you speak in actions from politicians that claim libertarian when it suits them, but aren't nearly so when it comes to federal regulations regarding marijuana, medical or recreational, limiting marriage and attempting to regulate physician assisted suicide.

At one time in America's history a national prohibition took a constitutional amendment, now prohibitions can be passed as the political winds blow.  And blow they often do.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 19, 2011)

Cryozombie said:


> While I agree with the Hypocritical sentiment 100%, you just can't use it with Guns/Pot because Guns are a Right, pot is not.  But there are plenty of other examples that do work.



I don't think it makes you Hypocritical to have conflicting beliefs.  Being hypocritical would be me saying Im against Legal weed and as im typing it Im smoking a fat one.  Having different beliefs due to life experiences just makes us human.  Before I became a police officer and saw the damage Marijuana can cause I was for its legalization I was for all drugs being legal because I "thought" the only one thats getting hurt is the user so who cares.  I have now seen with my own eyes this is not true and there are many direct and indirect victims of drug use.


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 19, 2011)

Since this thread has brought up the gun control topic, let me ask the opinion of Proponents of gun control here on this board:

Despite the "Shall Not Be Infringed" wording, people seem to think its reasonable (I don't specifically mean people on MT, I mean in the Nation in general) to infringe on those rights with things like "May Issue" permits that require one to show real need before a permit is given, argue for Insanley high insurance to be carried by owners, etc... then would you also agree that other rights need similar regulation?

The First Amendment should require a 3 day wait and a background check before you can voice your opinions, to ensure that you aren't the kind of person that would use hate speech? 

The 19th Amendment would require women to undergo a manditory "Voter Training Class" before they can Vote to ensure that they wont vote for the Sexy Saxophone Player, or the "Hot Black Man who's baby I want to have" but rather vote based on educated decisions?

The Fourth Amendment shall only apply IF they feel you have a genuine need to be free of unreasonable search and seizure?

The 25th Amendment will apply only in those states without a large minority population?

I could go on but I think you get where I am going with this.  Why are these restrictions tolerable on the Second Amendment but not on the others?  Believe me, I understand the danger a firearm, sword, or knife can present if used in a manner that is improper.  But is the fear that someone may use them in an inappropriate manner enough to justify the limitation of a right up to and including the exclusion of having that right for everyone? Especially when you consider the majority of those people who will use them inappropriately will do so at the exclusion of other laws as well, meaning the status of those restrictions probably won't matter anyhow?

If so, I have a laundry list of rights *I* think are downright dangerous...


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 19, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> I don't think it makes you Hypocritical to have conflicting beliefs.  Being hypocritical would be me saying Im against Legal weed and as im typing it Im smoking a fat one.  Having different beliefs due to life experiences just makes us human.



The hypocrisy is saying "I want the government out of our lives, but goddamn it they need to regulate this drug" or even "ZOMG Guns need to be banned because they are dangerous, but how dare you put up a Manger, we have a RIGHT to be free from religion!"


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 19, 2011)

Cryozombie said:


> The hypocrisy is saying "I want the government out of our lives, but goddamn it they need to regulate this drug" or even "ZOMG Guns need to be banned because they are dangerous, but how dare you put up a Manger, we have a RIGHT to be free from religion!"



I guess I see Hypocrisy differently then because your idea of having different beliefs on different issues will make everyone a Hypocrite.


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 19, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> I guess I see Hypocrisy differently then because your idea of having different beliefs on different issues will make everyone a Hypocrite.



No.  That isn't what I said.  Lemme break it down.

 Two examples, maybe I can clear up my meaning for you.

If you have Right A and Right B, and I say "Sorry you have to give up right A" and you argue that "You cant do that it's a Right, you cant Take away a right" but then say "But I disagree with B, so you have to give that up" that isn't having differing opinions on 2 issues, that is being Hypocritical, BECAUSE your justification for A is that it is a Right, while ignoring that exact same Justification for B.

However,

If you say "You cant take away A because I agree with it! But you need to give up B because I don't" *THAT *would be having different opinions, not being Hypocritical.  

My point is that I am seeing a lot of the former on a lot of issues latley, especially the gun control issue.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 19, 2011)

Cryozombie said:


> No.  That isn't what I said.  Lemme break it down.
> 
> Two examples, maybe I can clear up my meaning for you.
> 
> ...



I got you yes I agree with that.  i was looking at it in the context of Gun rights vs Marijuana.  One is a right provided by the constitution and the other is not.


----------



## Steve (Feb 19, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> I'm not defensive I answered your post. You called me a hypocrite and I answered you I dont label myself a strict libertarian. I believe we do need some laws as a society.  However I believe the laws need to follow the constitution.  The constitution says I can have a gun so Im against any laws that go against the Constitution.  I see nowhere in the constitution that gives me the right to smoke pot.  So that choice is then given to the people to decide and the people decided to make it against the law and I see no reasons to change that law.  If the people decide to change it and make it legal then so be it but I don't think they will be ready for the consequences.
> I have no problems answering your questions but you seem to not have an answer for mine because they go against your argument.



I didn't call you anything.  You're being a little irrational.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 19, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> I didn't call you anything.  You're being a little irrational.



ok
So Steve what about other drugs should they be legal or just Marijuana?


----------



## Steve (Feb 20, 2011)

Cryozombie said:


> While I agree with the Hypocritical sentiment 100%, you just can't use it with Guns/Pot because Guns are a Right, pot is not.  But there are plenty of other examples that do work.


It's an overarching philisophical position, and it is hypocritical.  While the 2nd amendment is a constitutional right, it is a fundamental libertarian position that the only power the government has are the specific powers granted it by the constitution.  In general, any intrusion in our personal lives that is not specifically outlined within the constitution is unwelcome.  

I simply pointed out that if one commonly identifies with this ideal, but then welcomes a prohibition against weed, he or she is being hypocritical.  

Also, from a practical standpoint, if one is against big government, the continued "war on drugs" as it applies to weed is also hypocritical.

Ballen took it personally and it clearly resonated with him.


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 20, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> It's an overarching philisophical position, and it is hypocritical.  While the 2nd amendment is a constitutional right, it is a fundamental libertarian position that the only power the government has are the specific powers granted it by the constitution.  In general, any intrusion in our personal lives that is not specifically outlined within the constitution is unwelcome.



Again, if you are talking specifically about Libertarianism than I wholeheartedly agree with you.  If you are just talking about people who believe in the second amendment in general, than no, you can't use that argument.


----------



## Steve (Feb 20, 2011)

Cryozombie said:


> Again, if you are talking specifically about Libertarianism than I wholeheartedly agree with you. If you are just talking about people who believe in the second amendment in general, than no, you can't use that argument.


  I said, "Anyone who claims to be in favor of less government intrusion and identifies themselves as anything resembling a libertarian who is also in favor of prohibition on marijuana is a hypocrite."  I don't think I went too far afield.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Feb 20, 2011)

Cryozombie said:


> Since this thread has brought up the gun control topic, let me ask the opinion of Proponents of gun control here on this board:
> 
> Despite the "Shall Not Be Infringed" wording, people seem to think its reasonable (I don't specifically mean people on MT, I mean in the Nation in general) to infringe on those rights with things like "May Issue" permits that require one to show real need before a permit is given, argue for Insanley high insurance to be carried by owners, etc... then would you also agree that other rights need similar regulation?
> 
> The First Amendment should require a 3 day wait and a background check before you can voice your opinions, to ensure that you aren't the kind of person that would use hate speech?


 
The basic breakdown of it is that all rights CAN be infringed by the government, but the more fundamental the right, the more compelling the interest must be before government can infringe.  The exact legal test is that, for a _fundamental_ right, the government must show that their infringement is (a) for a compelling interest, and (b) the least intrusive means of meeting said interest.  In short, to limit or regulate a fundamental right like the right to free speech, the government has to have a really really good reason for it.  For the record, this test is very difficult to meet, particularly because of the second prong.  

So to answer your question, yes, even free speech can be restricted, but the government has to prove a lot of stuff before the specific limitation they want to impose can pass.  I would argue the same with gun control.  I would never support a blanket ban of privately owned firearms, but a 3-day waiting period, I think, addresses a sufficient interest and is the least intrusive means.  The real trick, I think, is to consider each limitation rather than whther you're just anti or pro-gun control.  That just polarizes the issue.


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 21, 2011)

So, I might get angry, go buy a gun and kill someone, and a 3 day wait as a "Cooling off period" is a reasonable way to prevent that?

Heaven forbid I'd just take one of the other guns I already own and use that... *rolls eyes*

The real problem is that most of these restrictions are reactionary laws put into place to address incidents that, as a whole, are minuscule in scale, and do nothing really other than Punish law-abiding citizens. 

All this said, I do believe in certain limitations, but there are many that serve little purpose, or are downright unconstitutional, but the states are nitpicking at the Supreme court rulings and forcing us to go back to court over and over and over to get our rights back.

(Oh, and I'd agree with the 3 day wait, if they grandfather out current gun owners)


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Feb 21, 2011)

Cryozombie said:


> So, I might get angry, go buy a gun and kill someone, and a 3 day wait as a "Cooling off period" is a reasonable way to prevent that?
> 
> Heaven forbid I'd just take one of the other guns I already own and use that... *rolls eyes*
> 
> ...


 
These are all excellent arguments for not imposing this specific limitation.  I, personally, do not know the data about how effective the 3-day wait period is at what goal (could be to cool them off, could be for background checks, could be both), so I couldn't say either way.  That's separate, though, from whether the government can restrict fundamental rights at all.


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 21, 2011)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> These are all excellent arguments for not imposing this specific limitation.  I, personally, do not know the data about how effective the 3-day wait period is at what goal (could be to cool them off, could be for background checks, could be both), so I couldn't say either way.  That's separate, though, from whether the government can restrict fundamental rights at all.



FWIW, The Background checks take less than an hour.  The last firearm I purchased (just a couple weeks ago), the outdoor outfitters I purchased it at made me wait until the background check was complete before I could even pay for the weapon, then I had to wait.  The wait time (here it is 24 hours for long guns and 3 days for handguns) was created as a "Cool Down Period" by the Brady Campaign.  

It does seem like a separate issue, *until* riots and unrest are plaguing your area, and you rush to buy a gun to protect your family and are told no, you have to wait... as what was reported during the L.A. Riots.  (Were those reports true or not, I don't know, but I also don't doubt it) 

Granted, I think being unprepared is stupid, but that's how people are sometimes.


----------

