PieterCoetzee
Professional
ONLY on cases brought to them that they choose to consider
Breaking News: Supreme Courts strikes down law banning habitual marijuana users from owning firearms
- Thread starter Onewolf426
- Start date
Jfal
Ronin
3 spinal fusion surgeries, chronic spinal stenosis, every MRI she has had shows every disc herniated top to bottom. 2 laser procedures to burn and kill the nerves that carry pain receptor signals to her brain.
The alternative to weed is opiates (which she tried for 4-5 years). Her required opiate dosing continually increased, and chose weed over that option.
Think of the holes in each vertebrae being too small for you spinal cord....her cord squirts out between each vertebrae. It's an inherited condition that her grandmother also suffered from. I'd take myself out in a heartbeat if I had that condition, no doubt.
The above condition I describe is why I disagree with you 100%. You cannot convince me otherwise that her condition makes her unable to legally defend herself if she needs to do so, regardless of your high-morality on weed and the right to protect oneself. Unless of course, you have a medical recommendation that the doc's at UW medical system haven't recommended to eliminate her pain.
PieterCoetzee
Professional
Theres nothing wrong with a good debate or disagreement. We should all welcome it.
As for your wifes condition, of course I have nothing to offer but Im not understanding how marijuana helps when a high dose of Oxy is the only other option.
Im not doubting your truthfulness just confused that pot beats oxy AND if it does, how that doesnt make the user impaired and then maybe shouldnt have a firearm? There used to be a pain drug called "DARVON". It didnt take the pain away but it just made the user not care that they were in pain by impairing there brain functions
As for my "high morality on weed" Id suggest its not morality on weed but society; there used to be social standards but they seem to be steadily slipping
Last edited:
Old_Me
Emissary
yeah you cut out my whole sentence of.....
"the supreme court can also strike down bans on all other things 2A related".....
why, did you cut out my whole sentence........to fit YOUR narrative...???
don't you realize the many cases brought up to the supreme court..that are/were 2 A related....????
i don't know the number myself...but it certainly was not JUST ONE.......
Pitdogg2
Hellcat
Let's start with your blinders. You refuse to understand because of your Law Enforcement indoctrination training. Your thought pattern reminds me of career C-suite type LEO who were/are absolutely against concealed carry. How many times have we sat and watched them parrot the same tired excuses about wild west shootouts at traffic accidents or any other mundane issues? A LOT! Has it happened? No!
The reasons you fail to understand is you seem to think for whatever reasons that you absolutely know more than anyone else because you were in law enforcement. Well experience is a two way street and you're only going one way and ignoring the other traffic on the other side of the street.
The government in their great ability to suppress any sort of research on the many benefits because of the classification of marijuana with heroin, PCP and other zero medical benefit drugs in that class schedule.
Now that it's been reclassified we may have better research and have better knowledge of why it works the way it does.
Two of the most dangerous addictive drugs on the planet have been legal and taxed for the most part except for prohibition.
Look at this another way psychedelics were seriously frowned on and were scheduled the same way. We are now finding out that there are some uses for those with PTSD and some other trauma. The Native Americans knew that peyote and magic mushrooms had usefulness. More research has actually backed up what they knew about psilocybin.
PieterCoetzee
Professional
I cut it out for brevity and to make it easier for others to understand. Simply put the Suprema Court gets to decide which cases they want hear (on any subject) Thats NOT a narrative thing its just the way it is, the issue isnt 2A or not, its a question of the case.
PieterCoetzee
Professional
So are you saying we have to legalize it to study it? Isnt that like Pelosi saying first we have to pass the bill in order to read it?
My opinion of marijuana started long before my LEO career. I saw people who were high and didint want to be around them. That included drunks too. For what its worth I was the cop you wanted to come to your house ESPECIALLY when it came to 2A issues. Frankly Id like to see universal carry. Nothing about any gun control law will stop bad guys from being bad. Laws are just black ink on white paper that tell cops what to charge AFTER the shite is over. At best laws only stop people who are afraid of going to jail.
Psychedelics? WOW ok. You may have more info than me on that one but Im pretty sure theres NO/ZERO use/testing in the US. Nor do I know of any serious repeatable tests or testing parameters. Yes Ive "heard" something from someone who "heard" something from someone. Maybe psychedelics work, MAYBE but my experience is that counseling should at least be tried first and second and third before any drugs. Im just hard pressed to understand how a Hallucinogenic experience would resolve PTSD when counseling doesnt.
I would also add that I think commanders NEED to recognize it early in the field before it becomes a lasting problems. Ive lived through combat and PD incidents, Ive seen soldiers and cops after combat and critical incidents, that needed someone to listen and needed to talk but Ive never seen anyone that needed to get high, in fact just the opposite. You may have other experiences
WellArmed
Custom
Because they have the right to do whatever to THEIR body just as long as they aren't doing anything to anyone else. It's because they have the right to still hunt and defend themselves and their family. I find your anti-constitutional and American comments to be rude and offensive, which isn't surprising from older men stuck in the past clinging to outdated points of views. What other constitutional rights do you think people who smoke pot should lose?
Then, it's the fact that alcohol, prescription drugs, caffeine, and a long list of other things are still legal and aren't on people who hold views like yours' radar. It's hypocritical. It's anti-gun. The rationale people use for the mental gymnastics they come up with to support removing constitutional rights from people who smoke a plant flower has so many illogical holes in it that it should be insulting to anyone who is mildly intelligent..
This war on smoking this particular plant flower and all of the fear mongering overly dramatic rhetoric that's tied to it is antiquated. There are very few things that I believe has been getting better with time in Western society, but the country as a whole, many Conservatives included, moving away from criminalizing cannabis is a great thing. The other thing I'm glad we're getting away from is allowing law enforcement to easily and effortlessly bypassing the 4th Amendment simply by alleging that they smell weed. This has been abused ad nauseam with immunity.
Last edited:
WellArmed
Custom
I respect and support all the members on this forum, and my opinions aren't meant to be an overarching person attack. We all agree on 99.99% of things. Still, on this topic, I have strong views. I just see people who want to disarm or put people in prison on the tax payer's dime because they date to exercise a God given or natural right to hunt or defend themselves and family all because they choose to achieve a good feeling similar to drink in a glass of wine or smoking a cigarette as being outright wrong, especially being that them doing so isn't harming anyone else. It's also less addictive and dangerous to society and families as a whole.
The fact that some are so against this so-called evil while not have the same energy and anger against other more mainstream and socially accepted "evils" that are a hundred times worse is just further proof that the hatred is more based on feelings and what people where in doctrinated into thinking all their lives rather than logic and facts. That same line of thinking are why many people from the left hate "assault weapons" but are okay with and don't want to ban handguns, when all rifles and shotguns combine make up a tiny percentage of comes and deaths. It doesn't make any logical sense. No amount of spin will make it make sense, either.
The fact that some are so against this so-called evil while not have the same energy and anger against other more mainstream and socially accepted "evils" that are a hundred times worse is just further proof that the hatred is more based on feelings and what people where in doctrinated into thinking all their lives rather than logic and facts. That same line of thinking are why many people from the left hate "assault weapons" but are okay with and don't want to ban handguns, when all rifles and shotguns combine make up a tiny percentage of comes and deaths. It doesn't make any logical sense. No amount of spin will make it make sense, either.
Last edited:
PieterCoetzee
Professional
People do NOT have the right to do anything to their body, maybe you think they should but its simply not true. We stop people from hurting themselves with guns and drugs and jumping off buildings. We do that because its a sign of mental illness and because they may hurt others in their attempts
So what restrictions on pot do you feel are appropriate since you dont seem to think there should be any restrictions on people who want to smoke it OR do you think anyone should be to do anything anytime? How do you propose stopping someone from driving while high? OR shouldnt we worry about that?
Its NOT anti gun to think people who are addicted to a drug shouldnt be trusted with a gun
Notice Ive said that without insulting you, so if youre thinking the world is better with us old guys dying off, Id ask you where the civility has gone
So what restrictions on pot do you feel are appropriate since you dont seem to think there should be any restrictions on people who want to smoke it OR do you think anyone should be to do anything anytime? How do you propose stopping someone from driving while high? OR shouldnt we worry about that?
Its NOT anti gun to think people who are addicted to a drug shouldnt be trusted with a gun
Notice Ive said that without insulting you, so if youre thinking the world is better with us old guys dying off, Id ask you where the civility has gone
Last edited:
PAGunGuy
Custom
You have demosntrated, throughout this thread, that you are anti-second ammendment.
I too, wear a badge. It's in a different capacity, but I also have years experience dealing with criminals. In fact, everyone I deal with is a convicted felon.
But, like you, I took an oath to uphold the Constitution. In my oath, I didn't swear to just uphold what I like.
At the end of the day, by badge is just my job. It doesn't give me the right to decide what other rights people have or don't have.
I am 100% against legalized, recreational marijuana for many of the reasons you have mentioned. I am 100% for medical marijuana, however, it is badly, terribly, horribly abused in my state. However, that's a problem with the system and not the substance.
There is literally no way to justify it being illegal for someone who smokes an occasional joint from owning firearms but it's perfectly acceptable for an alcoholic to own guns. None. Period. Full stop.
Our Country is so far off base compare to what it was intended to be, and bad politicians and cops on power trips are largely responsible for that. In fact, I wouldn't even wear a badge in states like California, NY, etc...that insist on trampling on citizen's rights, while the system they work for routinely releases actual criminals.
bc22wm
Professional
We are not talking about addiction we are talking mind altering. Try to stay on the same page.
PieterCoetzee
Professional
To be clear I don’t think an alcoholic should have access to firearms either but alcohol isn’t illegal. Alcoholics get arrested for things they do when drunk. Pot users get arrested for possession and for the things they do when high.
Some seem to suggest there should be no restrictions on who should have free access to firearms under ALL conditions. So I ask would that include the mentally ill? How’bout convicted felons. How’bout criminals while incarcerated? How’bout kids in school? Should the convicted rapist be returned the gun he used when out of prison? I don’t think the original authors of the constitution intended that but maybe you do?
You want/need to get high to get through life do it without a gun. That’s not anti 2A. That’s seeing the world with a head not clouded by intoxicating substances
Some seem to suggest there should be no restrictions on who should have free access to firearms under ALL conditions. So I ask would that include the mentally ill? How’bout convicted felons. How’bout criminals while incarcerated? How’bout kids in school? Should the convicted rapist be returned the gun he used when out of prison? I don’t think the original authors of the constitution intended that but maybe you do?
You want/need to get high to get through life do it without a gun. That’s not anti 2A. That’s seeing the world with a head not clouded by intoxicating substances
PieterCoetzee
Professional
If you want to dive into Original Intent maybe start another thread
BassCliff
Ronin
Hi,
Yes, Western society is spinning down. Lord have mercy.
onlinecoursesblog.hillsdale.edu
Thank you for your indulgence,
BassCliff
Yes, Western society is spinning down. Lord have mercy.
Our Constitution Was Made Only for a Moral and Religious People - onlinecoursesblog.hillsdale.edu
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
onlinecoursesblog.hillsdale.edu
Thank you for your indulgence,
BassCliff
PieterCoetzee
Professional
and to be clear not all "religions" were included BUT it certainly was designed with morality in mind
PieterCoetzee
Professional
REALLY where did you read that?
and again what makes you think that I did anything like you are alleging?
In fact it requires Police to decide if someone's rights have been violated, then take appropriate action. Maybe YOUR badge is different, IDK but you do say you arent a cop? Look I dont think less of you because you arent police; but Id ask that you not interpret my actions on the job without having been next to me when I did it
I read your post and wonder if you actually read mine? I ask because much of your posts seem inconsistent with what Ive been saying. Now Im trying to remain polite but Im really wondering if you read and comprehended what youre posting about.
Last edited:
