Should pot smokers be allowed to own guns?

[Comrade Grumpy]

There is much talk about mental health screening for gun ownership. I just happened to read a Pennsylvania mental health/gun purchase bill that lists all the people who would be disqualified. It includes marijuana users. I suspect that is typical.

Should pot smokers be allowed to own guns?

[phleshdef]

1. Pot smokers should only be banned from it if alcohol drinkers are also banned from it.

[Honeycombe8]

12. Exactly. nt

[Paul E Ester]

32. How about "since alcohol users are not banned from it, neither should pot smokers."

I never understand the logic of turning an "unjust law" that applies to a minority into a "just law" because the "unjust law" is applied to equally to everyone. Now we have injustice for everyone.

[phleshdef]

45. I don't think any kind of gun laws should be based on alcohol or marijuana...

...I was just making a point.

[Paul E Ester]

55. I know what you meant.

I think I used to think your way, embrace the suck. Now days I make a conscious decision to embrace freedom.

Should we cheer a hypocrite lawmaker getting arrested for an UNJUST law?

GOP Assemblyman accused of pot possession
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2512126

Should we cheer a hypocrite lawmaker getting arrested for an UNJUST law?

WIDE STANCE WEASEL: Larry Craig Attempts To Use Campaign Funds For Sex Scandal Legal Defense
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2497187

Hell no, we should cheer the repeal of those bullshit laws, and give a break to anyone caught up in them.

[Autumn]

2. Should alcohol users be allowed to own guns?

I don't see a big difference there.

[Warren DeMontague]

3. the fact that you can buy AR-15s at Wal-Mart and we throw pot smokers in prison says it all.

Sort of like how people slobber all over violence but freak right the fuck out if there's a nipple on tv.

[Bay Boy]

8. Which Walmart is selling AR-15s?

It's not the one in my town.

[Warren DeMontague]

9. And technically assault weapon is a nonsense term and 30 round clips are totally reasonable and blah

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah


fact of the matter is, people can fucking buy them. Relatively easy. While we throw cancer grannies in prison for smoking pot. THAT is the point, jack.

[Bay Boy]

15. I see...

...accuracy isn't important as long as you get your point across.
I guess that's ok with me.

[Warren DeMontague]

20. And I see you ignore the obvious point, preferring to attempt to derail with minute details.

Gee, never seen that tactic before.

Oh, and by the way:

http://www.thenation.com/article/171808/how-walmart-helped-make-newtown-shooters-ar-15-most-popular-assault-weapon-america

the model is familiar to many Walmart shoppers. It’s on sale at about 1,700 Walmart stores nationwide, though the retail chain pulled the weapon from its website three days after the attack.

[Peter cotton]

28. It's the most popular rifle in America.

Why wouldn't Walmart sell it?

[Warren DeMontague]

30. Pot is the most popular drug in America, and we throw people in prison for smoking it.

Whereas the big shiny "popular rifle" that Adam Lanza used to mutilate a room full of 6 year olds, well, that should be celebrated.

[Peter cotton]

36. Pot should be completely legal. All drugs should be, for that matter.

As for AR-15s being "celebrated", there are certainly forums and magazines devoted to them, just as there are forums and magazines devoted to virtually all weapons, be they handguns, rifles, shotguns, tanks, warships...there are far more such devoted to small arms, of course, an AR-15 being somewhat more practicable to own than an aircraft carrier.

[Warren DeMontague]

37. you just said it was the "most popular rifle in America".

Which is a little disconcerting given that it's totally ludicrous for "home defense" much less hunting. In fact, as near as I can tell, the main rationale for owning them (other than "we like them", which is at least intellectually honest) is that the AR-15 owners need the big guns to protect them from the gub'mint when the gub'mint comes to take their big guns.

But it's ludicrous, because the government will always have a bigger gun. But rationality isn't the strong suit of the Alex Jones crowd.

[Peter cotton]

40. An Ar-15 makes an excellent home defense weapon, the VP's advice notwithstanding.

As for hunting, an AR-15 in its most common chambering (5.56x45) is a perfectly good small game rifle, and a marginal deer rifle. If chambered for larger cartridges such as 6.8 SPC, .300 Blackout, or .50 Beowulf, an AR15 can be and regularly is used for larger game up to and including elk and bear.

[Eleanors38]

77. The suitability of the AR 15 for hunting, economical shooting sports and home defense....

has been well established; your mantra chant to the contrary, this modular platform is the new utility rifle, yet is based on a century-old technology. Frankly, even if the AR 15 were to somehow be "banned" (it has never been by fed law), and despite the flash-bang of the 94 AWB, a new modular rifle type will come about like a hydra head. Gun controllers will again face the "need" for another ban.

This kind of skin shedding has happened before as regards civilian "rearmament." It's not a shotgun in the corner, or a .38 in the nightstand anymore, and hasn't been for some time.

You read Alex Jones much? I don't.

[Warren DeMontague]

82. I'm glad you've found something that gives you such a profound feeling of satisfaction.

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mike-friends-blog/america-you-must-not-look-away-how-finish-nra

[Eleanors38]

85. The usual insult & crap.

[angel823]

91. this ^

exactly.

Angel in Texas

[Bay Boy]

29. Dude you need to chill out...

...I commented that they don't sell AR-15s at my walmart and all you needed to say is that they do sell them at some Walmarts.

[Warren DeMontague]

31. I need to chill out?

[Bay Boy]

34. If you are him then...

...you don't ever need to chill out.

[Warren DeMontague]

38. I am all the Parents in New Town.

And that event ripped my heart right the fuck out of my chest, and permanently demolished my own shameful long-term silence (based upon political "reality&quot on the topic of reasonable gun control.

And a reinstated AWB, and limitations on high capacity clips, are reasonable IMHO.

[Son of Gob]

44. Another sock puppet

Member since: Thu Jul 21, 2005, 01:43 PM
Number of posts: 503
Number of posts, last 90 days: 496

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=173696

I don't understand why they don't create new accounts. Keeping track of 7 year old email addresses and usernames seems kinda pointless, it makes it even more obvious that they're trolls when they start posting furiously after no posts in the first 7 years.

[madville]

51. The AWB would not have prevented Newtown

AR-15 rifles and high capacity magazines were and are still available under the federal and almost all state assault weapons bans.

[klook]

57. OK, so what's your recommendation?

I'm all ears.

[madville]

59. Address the root causes of gun violence

Mental illness, the war on drugs, violence glamorized in entertainment (movies, tv, bideo games and music), no jobs, no opportunity, the cycle of poverty in inner cities, etc.

Assault weapons account for 5% of shootings, shotguns roughly another 5%. Why is no one proposing handgun restrictions that address the bulk on gun violence?

It's not that hard to see that the AWB as we know it is not effective at limiting gun violence since it addresses the appearance of the firearm and not the overall function. It allows the millions of existing ones to stay on the streets and the new ban compliant models that come out are easily modified to pre-ban configurations because criminals and mass shooters don't follow the law.

I'm just saying the way they go about restricting assault weapons is not effective and done from a PR standpoint. It makes no sense to waste time on a worthless law, put some teeth in it and make it actually work.

[Warren DeMontague]

58. if it wouldn't be effectual at all, then why is there such resistance to it?

Principle, right?

[madville]

62. I oppose the AWB because it doesn't really do anything

It's stupid to reignite the "Democrats want to ban your guns" fury again if the law is this same rehashed crap addressing physical appearance and with all the grandfathering leaving tens of millions of weapons and hundreds of millions of high capacity magazines in circulation.

I remember the first AWB, high cap magazines were sti available, they cost $20 instead of $8, due to the restriction on new ones. Then of course everyone with law enforcement buddies got them to get them for them since that protected class is exempt and doesn't follow the law either.

[Warren DeMontague]

63. I think the ground has changed on gun control.

And the people who want to believe "Democrats want to ban your guns" are going to believe that no matter what.

I am sympathetic to political reality arguments; it is for those reasons that gun control, or gun legislation, was a back burner for me for a long time. And I didn't want to see 1994, ever again.

But I can't be silent anymore about it. And I have to believe that an AWB can be crafted that will make a difference. Same with ammo clips; even making them more expensive might be a deterrent.

[madville]

67. The problem with firearms in general

Is they are metal, plastic, and/or wood. Very easy to modify and that is what is wrong with the AWB in the past and proposed form. Anyone wanting to buy a ban compliant rifle can easily change it to a pre-ban configuration in a matter of minutes with legally sold cheap parts. Someone about to go on a shooting spree isn't concerned about legality at that point.

A high capacity magazine ban won't prevent much since it's so easy to modify many ten round versions back into high capacity versions. We're talking about steel and plastic, both fairly easily to fabricate and modify.

[Warren DeMontague]

69. Then like i said

The gun people shouldnt mind the ban, if it wont do anything.

[klook]

56. +26.

Exactly how I feel..."ripped my heart right the fuck out of my chest." God DAMN it.

I'll be working the rest of my life to change this, as long as it takes.

"I am all the parents in New Town." Very well said.

[ladjf]

73. I'm sure that it must have happened somewhere but I have never heard of a case where a

pot smoker was a mass shooter.

[Buzz Clik]

4. You have to own a gun to do shotguns.

duh

[Comrade Grumpy]

5. If you're doing shotguns with a real gun, you might have a problem down the road.

[Buzz Clik]

7. Not if you clean the shotgun thoroughly after use.

[apocalypsehow]

6. Yes. Where marijuana use is legal it should be treated just like alcohol, and no one is proposing

that gun owners be mandatory teetotalers in the gun control debate. Handling or using firearms while intoxicated is another matter.

As marijuana use should be legal everywhere in any event, the flat answer is "Yes."


On edit: I meant "No" in the unedited reply in the sense that it should not be treated any differently from gun owners who drink alcohol, but the subject line of the OP made my initial reply confusing, as it seemed I was saying pot smokers should be prohibited from owning firearms.

[Nika]

10. As long as they don't smoke it with shotguns like U.S. troops in Vietnam did

As shown in this news still from an incident when troops from the 1st BN, 12th CAV–the battalion in Vietnam in ’70-’71–made national news for being filmed smoking pot through a shotgun barrel.

[JonLP24]

11. Where is that list?

I'm curious to see who would be excluded.

I'm more scared of "sane" people that decided they want me dead than someone w/ various mental illnesses. Also, someone w/ a mental illness face the same threats everyone else faces, if not more, so they should be able to defend themselves. Also there are situations where someone does have a mental illness but w/ combination of medication and treatment they are just as fine as anyone else, should it be a lifetime ban?

One, where I would draw the line isn't considered a mental illness, I believe, is sociopaths shouldn't have access to guns.

[Comrade Grumpy]

21. Here's who would be excluded:

The bill is Pennsylvania House Bill 521. Sorry I don't have the link, but it shouldn't be too hard to find.

A license shall not be issued to any of the following:
(i) An individual whose character and reputation is such that the individual would be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety.
(ii) An individual who has been convicted of an offense under the act of April 14, 1972 (P.L.233, No.64), known as The Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act.
(iii) An individual convicted of a crime enumerated in section 6105.
(iv) An individual who, within the past ten years, has been adjudicated delinquent for a crime enumerated in section 6105 or for an offense under The Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act.
(v) An individual who is not of sound mind or who has ever been committed to a mental institution.
(vi) An individual who is addicted to or is an unlawful user of marijuana or a stimulant, depressant or narcotic drug.
(vii) An individual who is a habitual drunkard.
(viii) An individual who is charged with or has been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year except as provided for in section 6123 (relating to waiver of disability or pardons).
(ix) A resident of another state who does not possess a current license or permit or similar document to carry a firearm issued by that state if a license is provided for by the laws of that state, as published annually in the Federal Register by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms of the Department of the Treasury under 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(19) (relating to definitions).
(x) An alien who is illegally in the United States.
(xi) An individual who has been discharged from the armed forces of the United States under dishonorable conditions.
(xii) An individual who is a fugitive from justice. This subparagraph does not apply to an individual whose fugitive status is based upon nonmoving or moving summary offense under Title 75 (relating to vehicles).
(xiii) An individual who is otherwise prohibited from possessing, using, manufacturing, controlling, purchasing, selling or transferring a firearm as provided by section 6105.
(xiv) An individual who is prohibited from possessing or acquiring a firearm under the statutes of the United States.
(xv) An individual who has failed to obtain firearm liability insurance as provided under subsection (e.1).

[JonLP24]

27. Thanks

The part about "not of sound mind" seems much more vague than I originally imagined. That, among other reasons, is why I hope the bill fails.

[Eleanors38]

78. When Prohibitionisms Collide! The language in (vi) is

very similar to the marijuana language in Form 4473. I remember hearing the conversation the guy in front of of me had with the gun shop counterman when he questioned the pot provision and was told he had to check no or he couldn't be approved. He thought and said:

"I've been out for a month, so I guess 'no.'"

They both laughed, and the sale went through.

Why does everyone want to pick on the mentally ill, and not provide due process?

[madinmaryland]

13. Why would a pot smoker want to own a gun, dude??

[Comrade Grumpy]

25. I know some pot-smoking hunters. Others may have other reasons.

[madinmaryland]

35. Dude! You don't need a gun to bag a bag of cheetos!!

[dairydog91]

41. It's hell on target shooting too.

- "You gonna take the shot?"
- "Dude."
- "What?"
- "Dude, do you realize that this scope...just this scope...is made of billions and billions of molecules, man? And that each of those molecules could contain a little universe?"
- "Woah. That's deep."

[pangaia]

66. WHEW !

Finally an intelligent statement.

I've been tryin' to think of what to say to this thread... Can't beat that, man.
Have another toke...

[Eleanors38]

79. I've had several, thank you! Think I'll have another & calculate bullet drop... at... How far?..

[pangaia]

88. Oh.. how many light years to Thor's Helmet Nebula?

[Eleanors38]

92. No, no, it's the sounds! The light sounds!

[pangaia]

94. Well Ellie. if I may call you that..

the light gets there before the sounds.. so... it's like, man the light has no sound. man. It's just. there. man..

[bowens43]

14. Of course not no one should be allowed to own guns

[mwrguy]

50. +1

Exactly

[Lint Head]

16. If more people smoked pot nobody would want to shoot anyone.

[KansDem]

17. Or animals...

[SammyWinstonJack]

93. ...

[The Straight Story]

18. Only the wealthy, politicians, and people govt should have them - the rest of us suck

and we should be afraid of each other.

Those people...we can trust them the most....

[Paul E Ester]

19. You would have to lie on ATF form 4473

Question E. - Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?

Note: Alcoholics are exempt.

If you use marijuana you have to lie about this question to legally purchase a weapon from a FFL.

We could enforce this by creating a registry of medical marijuana users, cross reference it with gun registrations and send the cops to disarm them.

Drug testing every applicant to close this dangerous loophole.

[Comrade Grumpy]

24. That's very similar to the language in the Pennsylvania bill.

I posted the list of exclusions upthread.

The Pennsylvania list, however, includes "habitual drunkards."

[Jenoch]

76. It's kind of self-evident,

but if you lie on form 4473 then it is an illegal gun pruchase.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

22. Should anti-gunners be allowed to own guns?

This one does:

[gollygee]

23. Pot smokers are probably safer than alcohol drinkers

around guns.

[1-Old-Man]

26. and they certainly make for better company.

if there is one thing on the face of this good green earth that I hate it a sniveling drunk, and it comes on them a lot sooner than they think.

[Logical]

60. Three guys with a bottle of Whiskey want to start a fight. Three guys with....

a bowl of pot want to start a Band!

[arely staircase]

95. brilliant

eom

[HereSince1628]

96. I also doubt 'illegal' aliens are more dangerous than US natives, but their banned from

firearms purchase/possession, too.

I think some of these restrictions have more to do with punishment of 'law-breakers' than anything.

Could it be the case that the willingness to break the law evidenced by smoking pot is actually the thing that is the threat, not the effect of the pot?

[kudzu22]

33. I believe one of the questions on the federal form is

"Are you a user of illegal drugs?" Marijuana is still an illegal drug under federal law (WA and CO state laws notwithstanding), so the current answer is "NO".

Now, should they be? I would tend toward saying yes, they should be allowed, providing that pot becomes as legal as alcohol.

[Iggo]

39. Should gun owners be allowed to consume alcohol?

[RedCappedBandit]

42. I'd rather be around an armed smoker than an armed drunk.

[petronius]

43. Yes, absolutely. I think marijuana should be completely legal, and its use

should not disqualify you from anything at all - just like alcohol.

I strongly oppose the active use of firearms (including carrying) while impaired by any substance, and would support a law treating that behavior similarly to driving while impaired, but I think that at least the Brady Act should be amended to exclude pot...

[cherokeeprogressive]

46. Should gun smokers be allowed to own pot?

I think that is the more appropriate question.

[Comrade Grumpy]

47. "Sorry, dude, owning a gun is so not cool."

[Eleanors38]

80. Only if black powder.

[backscatter712]

48. Yes, under alcohol rules...

[olddots]

49. If pot and hemp were legal less people would think they need guns

that's logic and science....Science Bad !---- Logic is Satan's work ! Knowledge Bad ! All Hail Sarah !

[HockeyMom]

53. Definitely agree with one

+1

[Crepuscular]

52. Yes.

There should be parity with alcohol laws. Neither should be allowed when hunting, using a gun or carrying concealed, though.

[PoliticAverse]

54. It's currently illegal at the Federal level for pot users to own or possess firearms or ammunition.

This includes medical pot users.

ATF letter on the issue (.pdf): http://www.nssf.org/share/PDF/ATFOpenLetter092111.pdf

[madville]

64. I always find it interesting

That a bunch on here will argue that federal gun laws should be the law of the land. Then another group finds it horrible the Feds enforce federal marijuana laws. They either have authority everywhere or they don't, can't cherry pick.

I think both should be left to the states if no interstate commerce is involved. Grow your pot in your yard and smoke at your house, that is the state's jurisdiction, buy a gun made in your state that doesn't leave home, no federal jurisdiction.

[Kalidurga]

61. Only pot smokers should be allowed to own guns.

Think about it, if you are required to take a hit off of a joint how likely are you going to be to want to shoot someone after that?

[ladjf]

75. Good point. nt

[HereSince1628]

65. If they are convicted as users, yes. Use of an illegal substance is FEDERAL NICS category.

It has nothing to do with PA.

[pangaia]

68. Hey comrade...

See what you started, now?
As has been mentioned here, after a toke or two who would want to shoot anybody.
Therefore, POT should be mandatory for everyone over---ummm ....ohh--- 13 maybe.... I'd say 3 to 10 tokes per day would do it, depending on age, weight,tolerance and tendency towards violence.

[gopiscrap]

70. No no one should be allowed to own guns

[demwing]

81. That's nonsense /nt

[coldmountain]

71. Maybe pot smokers should be the only ones allowed with guns!

[spanone]

72. should people on prescription drugs be allowed to own guns?

[In_The_Wind]

74. Yes they should!

[limpyhobbler]

83. Yes pot smokers should be allowed to own guns.

What would be the reasoning to take guns from pot smokers?

Wouldn't you have to produce some evidence that shows pot smokers are dangerous with guns?

And that they were relatively more dangerous than beer users? Which is laughable.

I doubt there is any such evidence and this is just being done because people are prejudiced against drug users.

[mike_c]

84. fuck if I care....

A) I'm a pot smoker.

B) I don't own guns. Never have.

C) Ergo, I don't give a rat's buttocks one way or the other.

D) Whose turn is it to fill the bowl?

Frankly, I'm happy with just about any reg that decreases the number of gun owners. So I'm all for banning pot smokers like myself from owning firearms. I'd be among the first to turn mine in, except, um, I don't have any.

[arely staircase]

86. should beer drinkers be allowed to own guns?

pot smokers, at least in colorado and washington, should certainly have the same rights and privileges and responsibilities as beer drinkers.

[XRubicon]

87. Only if they use a bong to smoke

Seriously, no.

[MNBrewer]

89. 2nd Amendment says nothing about "except pot smokers" does it?

[leeroysphitz]

90. If all pot smokers started shooting a bunch of people for no good reason then I'd say yes. n/t