Not Just Picking a Fight

[Steve]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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)

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]

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.