Are Gun Owners As Courageous As Pot Smokers?

[printcraft]

You're right. They're not the same. Pot smokers are incarcerated at much higher levels.
As for the rifle, you may be thinking of Olaffson's case, I think. There's no doubt that ATF has gone after a few gun owners and flat out fabricated evidence to suit themselves. It doesn't change the numbers.

Well, I'll agree with you on the numbers.
There are more people in prison due to drugs (pot) than there are due to gun crimes.
That is probably right in line with the number of people that are partaking in said illegal activity.

People selling drugs are probably 100 to 1 with people selling/possessing illegal weapons.

The penalties for each are different however.

 

[96firephoenix]

Ask Randy Weaver what happens if you violate gun laws.

good luck getting an answer

 

[Expat]

The libertarians have to always have one legalize pot thread going at all times... they get nervous without one.

Most gun owners that I know are very law abiding, almost OCD about it. They are nearly as bad as golfers. Pot smokers... not so much.

 

[rambone]

Somebody needs to defend their War On Drugs with respect to the 10th Amendment. Get nervous about that.

 

[BtownBlaster]

Maybe if as many gun owners were willing to challenge these laws as pot smokers seem to be, the prosecution rate would go down. They couldn't build enough jails to house everybody. On the other hand, if only a few do it, they will be hammered. There is safety in numbers, but I also agree that the wide discrepancy in punishment for challenging the law will have a strong deterrent effect.

 

[mrjarrell]

The libertarians have to always have one legalize pot thread going at all times... they get nervous without one.

Most gun owners that I know are very law abiding, almost OCD about it. They are nearly as bad as golfers. Pot smokers... not so much.

Ummm...this thread and the OP aren't about legalising pot. It's about civil disobedience at its core.

 

[Archaic_Entity]

The libertarians have to always have one legalize pot thread going at all times... they get nervous without one.

Most gun owners that I know are very law abiding, almost OCD about it. They are nearly as bad as golfers. Pot smokers... not so much.

While we are "almost OCD" about being lawful citizens, it's because we enjoy a "privilege" so long as we remain law-abiding. Considering the difference in our activities from smokers, it's obvious why we are more law-abiding. Their hobby inherently causes them to break an unjust law. Therefore, they are law-breakers.

The question that comes to play, if firearms become as regulated as marijuana, would you continue to be a stickler to the law? Or would you, too, break the law and forsake the "privilege" for the right? As it stands, we ensure we know every law possible pertaining to gun ownership and gun carrying because it's important to us to maintain being lawful citizens. When you get to the point that there is no reason to maintain our vigilant lawfulness, are you just gonna throw in the towel for the sake of being lawful? Or are you going to take it to the government infringing on your rights?

 

[Blackhawk2001]

While we are "almost OCD" about being lawful citizens, it's because we enjoy a "privilege" so long as we remain law-abiding. Considering the difference in our activities from smokers, it's obvious why we are more law-abiding. Their hobby inherently causes them to break an unjust law. Therefore, they are law-breakers.

The question that comes to play, if firearms become as regulated as marijuana, would you continue to be a stickler to the law? Or would you, too, break the law and forsake the "privilege" for the right? As it stands, we ensure we know every law possible pertaining to gun ownership and gun carrying because it's important to us to maintain being lawful citizens. When you get to the point that there is no reason to maintain our vigilant lawfulness, are you just gonna throw in the towel for the sake of being lawful? Or are you going to take it to the government infringing on your rights?

Actually, my question is: if firearms were to become more regulated, why would I tell anyone in an online forum what I would do about it?

 

[BloodEclipse]

Actually, my question is: if firearms were to become more regulated, why would I tell anyone in an online forum what I would do about it?

Bingo we have a winner!

 

[Archaic_Entity]

Actually, my question is: if firearms were to become more regulated, why would I tell anyone in an online forum what I would do about it?

Couldn't agree more, honestly. But that's what mrjarrell was getting at, I believe. At what point do gun owners stand up for their rights to the same extremity as pot smokers?

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Couldn't agree more, honestly. But that's what mrjarrell was getting at, I believe. At what point do gun owners stand up for their rights to the same extremity as pot smokers?

I repeat my last transmission.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Couldn't agree more, honestly. But that's what mrjarrell was getting at, I believe. At what point do gun owners stand up for their rights to the same extremity as pot smokers?

Perhaps when gun ownership becomes as much a violation of the law as possession of marijuana?

I've said before: I don't use drugs and won't use drugs not lawful for me to use, and won't use most of the ones that ARE lawful for me to use. "Drugs are for sick people", the saying goes. I do not support a government criminalizing the mere possession of certain substances that can be put into the human body for an effect, however.

Someone reminded me yesterday of the thing from a few years back where people were smoking banana peels for a "high". Should we now ban bananas?

What about autoerotic asphyxiations? I'm told the interest in this is because of the euphoric feeling achieved, and the side effect that some people die as a result of participating in this is partially negligence, partly accidental. Should we now require a permit to purchase rope or plastic bags?

The libertarians have to always have one legalize pot thread going at all times... they get nervous without one.

Most gun owners that I know are very law abiding, almost OCD about it. They are nearly as bad as golfers. Pot smokers... not so much.

Expat, it's less about the drugs and more about removing the over-intrusive controls improperly applied to the lives of free men and women. I am a libertarian, and I resent the implication you make that that's all people of my beliefs have an interest in achieving.
We want a government that doesn't control your speech, writing, religion, assembly, or gun ownership. We want a government that doesn't intrude on your person or property improperly in an effort to find anything of evidentiary value against you. We want a government that recognizes the rights of the accused and does not infringe upon those rights prior to a conviction of a crime that actually causes someone harm. We want a government, in short, that knows its place and is kept in that place by a vigilant citizenry. Those who support larger government, OTOH, seem to want a government that works tirelessly to ensure that rights are protected, so long as they are the rights of which those people approve. God granted our rights to all of us. Who do these people think they are to second-guess Him?

"...that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..."

Among. The list is not all-inclusive. It's like saying that our country is composed of individual, sovereign states, among which are Texas, Indiana, and Vermont. The difference is that the number of states is finite.

The drug issue and for that matter, the sexuality issue, are single facets of the whole, just as the gun ownership issue is a single facet of your beliefs and political ethos. Please stop making claims that you've been shown are untrue.

Thanks.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bill of Rights]

The libertarians have to always have one legalize pot thread going at all times... they get nervous without one.

Most gun owners that I know are very law abiding, almost OCD about it. They are nearly as bad as golfers. Pot smokers... not so much.

One additional point: Someone I chatted with on another board, a long time ago, made a good point in referring to gun owners as "peaceable" rather than "law-abiding", because if gun ownership was somehow suddenly made unlawful, there would be no such thing as a law-abiding gun owner. You'd have to make a choice between owning and remaining law-abiding. Being "peaceable", that choice is no longer necessary. I am peaceable. That doesn't mean I won't use force, only that I will use force only when necessary to repel someone else doing so without respect for my rights. I will not seek opportunities to use force, neither will I run from situations requiring me to either do so or BOHICA.

If gun ownership was suddenly made unlawful, which would you be? Law-abiding or a gun owner? Don't answer that question on here if you don't want to, just ask it of yourself and then substitute "marijuana" for "gun".

The principle is the same, varying only as to degree.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[PatriotPride]

Actually, my question is: if firearms were to become more regulated, why would I tell anyone in an online forum what I would do about it?

Finally. I can assure you the ATF and DEA are glued to this thread like flies on crap. It's against my better judgement that I'm even posting here.

Why would I post here regarding what I would do with my firearms that were lost in a house fire?

 

[jbombelli]

Yeah, that. The consequences are not the same.

I'm pretty sure you don't go to federal prison for having a joint.

Have a rifle that will fire even in a 3rd burst that is not registered and taxed and you will be enjoying 3 hots and a cot and the love of mr. johnson.

Try having a joint, a gun on your hip, and a LTCH in your pocket.

 

[Expat]

Expat, it's less about the drugs and more about removing the over-intrusive controls improperly applied to the lives of free men and women. I am a libertarian, and I resent the implication you make that that's all people of my beliefs have an interest in achieving.

Now don't go getting all resentful. I meant the comment about the libertarians having to have a pot thread going at all times as a joke. Notice the added comment about getting nervous without one.

 

[rambone]

I am a libertarian, and I resent the implication you make that that's all people of my beliefs have an interest in achieving.
We want a government that doesn't control your speech, writing, religion, assembly, or gun ownership. We want a government that doesn't intrude on your person or property improperly in an effort to find anything of evidentiary value against you. We want a government that recognizes the rights of the accused and does not infringe upon those rights prior to a conviction of a crime that actually causes someone harm. We want a government, in short, that knows its place and is kept in that place by a vigilant citizenry.

Well said Bill.

We support the 10th Amendment too. The article comes from the 10th Amendment Foundation for crying out loud. Maybe someone would like to address that.

On this issue issue, you either support BIG Federal Government, or you don't. After we throw the Feds off our back you can push your local government to create a Nanny-State and ban drugs on a local level. I will choose to live where the taxes are less and the freedom is great.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Now don't go getting all resentful. I meant the comment about the libertarians having to have a pot thread going at all times as a joke. Notice the added comment about getting nervous without one.

Meant as a joke or not, it's not the first time you've said such and there's so much more to the ideals we hold dear than that one issue. I said I resent it, though not as a personal affront to me but rather as a dig on a group I see doing more than anyone else to actually make a difference and not just give us more of the same in power. "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss" was the quote used after the last election, usually paired with this picture:

It's time we saw something novel, something different. It's time we got back to the roots from which this country grew. I don't know that we'll find it in the Libertarian Party, but I'm pretty sure we won't find it in the Democratic OR the GOP party heads.

If you have somewhere else in mind to look, please share.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[varasha]

Bill of Rights your my fav....I probably couldn't have said it as well if i weren't smoking the pot...

I just wanna choose what is right for me, and my family. I work hard, i don't take hand-outs, (except if my mommy wants to buy me food from the store) and i pay taxes! What more does the gub-ment want from me!!!

On a side note, i was doing a repair at one of my tenant houses and i found in the backyard two 6 foot tall pot plants!! Luckily i was there to "remove" those terrible planet so my poor impressionable tenant couldn't do something terrible like "smoke" them!

 

[Bill of Rights]

Bill of Rights your my fav....I probably couldn't have said it as well if i weren't smoking the pot...

I just wanna choose what is right for me, and my family. I work hard, i don't take hand-outs, (except if my mommy wants to buy me food from the store) and i pay taxes! What more does the gub-ment want from me!!!

On a side note, i was doing a repair at one of my tenant houses and i found in the backyard two 6 foot tall pot plants!! Luckily i was there to "remove" those terrible planet so my poor impressionable tenant couldn't do something terrible like "smoke" them!

I hope that you're being sarcastic in your "side note". While I favor the removal of idiotic, pointless, and/or harmful laws, I don't advocate breaking the laws while they remain on the books. As for the tenant in your story, if it's true, I believe you violated his rights. Your property, but he pays rent and last I checked, you can't remove his property, even his unlawful property, without his consent. I'm talking partially about what's lawful and partially about what's right. Additionally, if everything you said is true and you're a holder of an Indiana License To Carry Handgun, you are risking the loss of your LTCH:

IC 35-47-1-4
"Drug abuser"
Sec. 4. "Drug abuser" means an individual who has had two (2) or more violations of IC 35-48-1, IC 35-48-2, IC 35-48-3, or IC 35-48-4, any one (1) of which resulted in conviction by a court or treatment in a drug abuse facility within five (5) years prior to the date of application.
As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.32.

IC 35-47-1-7
"Proper person"
Sec. 7. "Proper person" means a person who:
(1) does not have a conviction for resisting law enforcement under IC 35-44-3-3 within five (5) years before the person applies for a license or permit under this chapter;
(2) does not have a conviction for a crime for which the person could have been sentenced for more than one (1) year;
(3) does not have a conviction for a crime of domestic violence (as defined in IC 35-41-1-6.3), unless a court has restored the person's right to possess a firearm under IC 35-47-4-7;
(4) is not prohibited by a court order from possessing a handgun;
(5) does not have a record of being an alcohol or drug abuser as defined in this chapter;
(6) does not have documented evidence which would give rise to a reasonable belief that the person has a propensity for violent or emotionally unstable conduct;
(7) does not make a false statement of material fact on the person's application;
(8) does not have a conviction for any crime involving an inability to safely handle a handgun;
(9) does not have a conviction for violation of the provisions of this article within five (5) years of the person's application; or
(10) does not have an adjudication as a delinquent child for an act that would be a felony if committed by an adult, if the person applying for a license or permit under this chapter is less than twenty-three (23) years of age.
As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.32. Amended by P.L.191-1984, SEC.1; P.L.148-1987, SEC.3; P.L.269-1995, SEC.5; P.L.49-2005, SEC.1; P.L.118-2007, SEC.34.

As I said... I hope you're being sarcastic, because the rest of what you said about doing what's right for yourself and your family and working hard is commendable.

Blessings,
Bill