JohnRich 4 #1 January 18, 2011 News:Schumer Pushes for Military to Report Applicants' Drug Use to Prevent Gun Purchases If someone admits to a federal official that he's used illegal drugs, that information should be sent to the FBI so that person can be disqualified from purchasing a gun, Sen. Chuck Schumer said Sunday...Source: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/16/schumer-require-military-report-applicants-drug-use-prevent-gun-purchases/ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #2 January 18, 2011 Maybe I'm wrong, but doesn't drug use already prohibit a person from owning a gun? Wasn't that part of the Gun Control Act of 1968? Doesn't it already prohibit sales of guns to people "addicted to or an unlawful user of marihuana or a stimulant, depressant, or narcotic drug"? http://www.nraila.org/federalfirearms.htm#summaryquade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #3 January 18, 2011 Felony drug usage should indeed disqualify you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #4 January 18, 2011 QuoteFelony drug usage should indeed disqualify you. Because of the fact that it's a felony? Or because drugs that would count as a felony are perceived to be more harmful than legal drugs? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #5 January 18, 2011 >Because of the fact that it's a felony? Because the person has shown that they are willing to commit serious crimes to get what they want. People willing to commit serious crimes should not have access to guns. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #6 January 18, 2011 Quote>Because of the fact that it's a felony? Because the person has shown that they are willing to commit serious crimes to get what they want. People willing to commit serious crimes should not have access to guns. I suppose then you would need to define "serious."I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #7 January 18, 2011 QuoteQuote>Because of the fact that it's a felony? Because the person has shown that they are willing to commit serious crimes to get what they want. People willing to commit serious crimes should not have access to guns. I suppose then you would need to define "serious." I believe that's already defined. You can look it up yourself in the Gun Control Act of 1968.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #8 January 18, 2011 >I suppose then you would need to define "serious." Felony. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #9 January 18, 2011 Quote>I suppose then you would need to define "serious." Felony. So your definition of serious in this case - broad spectrum is Felony?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanuckInUSA 0 #10 January 18, 2011 Quote>Because of the fact that it's a felony? Because the person has shown that they are willing to commit serious crimes to get what they want. People willing to commit serious crimes should not have access to guns. There needs to be some sort of limit and this is something I can agree with. People who are willing to commit serious crimes should NOT have access to guns. Now what constitutes a serious crime is a different can of worms. Nevertheless, criminals should not have access to guns (unless of course they obtain these guns illegally and well there is a reason why they are called criminals). Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #12 January 18, 2011 Quote>Because of the fact that it's a felony? Because the person has shown that they are willing to commit serious crimes to get what they want. People willing to commit serious crimes should not have access to guns. On one hand I agree with you. But I have such little respect for the drug laws, that I don't think of a drug user as a serious criminal. The fact that one is willing to break an unjust law does not mean that he would also be willing to break a just law. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 906 #13 January 18, 2011 Agreed. Our political views on drugs could not be more inaccurate. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #14 January 18, 2011 Quote Ever Used Drugs? Most people use drugs (alcohol, caffeine, etc.). "Illegal" might be an important qualifier in that question. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #15 January 18, 2011 QuoteOn one hand I agree with you. But I have such little respect for the drug laws, that I don't think of a drug user as a serious criminal. The fact that one is willing to break an unjust law does not mean that he would also be willing to break a just law. So this is symptom of what's really broken then isn't it? "Felony" is a pretty good criteria for denial of rights. "But I, personally, don't think -some- felonies are that bad" This line of thought leads to WAY too many laws that try to work around the broken bits. 1 - make the law - Felony,,,you don't get guns 2 - fix the definition of felony if you don't like the results - but don't write an incredibly nuanced and subjective plethora of laws that are designed to 'get around' the concept in the first place IMO ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanuckInUSA 0 #16 January 18, 2011 QuoteBut I have such little respect for the drug laws, that I don't think of a drug user as a serious criminal. Someone who smokes weed and possesses a firearm isn't nearly as scary a scenario as someone who does harder drugs and is in possess of a firearm. "Drug Usage" is a rather generic term. Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #17 January 18, 2011 >The fact that one is willing to break an unjust law does not mean that he >would also be willing to break a just law. Agreed. But people's definition of "just" and "unjust" vary. If, however, someone has proven they will not break _any_ laws, then they will be less likely to break them in the future. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #18 January 18, 2011 QuoteSomeone who smokes weed and possesses a firearm isn't nearly as scary a scenario as someone who does harder drugs and is in possess of a firearm. No doubt. Someone who does the hard drug alcohol would be much more dangerous in possession of a firearm than someone who only smokes marijuana. (But I'm not saying that alcohol users should be banned from owning firearms, unless there is a reason beyond the simple drug use.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #19 January 18, 2011 Quote1 - make the law - Felony,,,you don't get guns 2 - fix the definition of felony if you don't like the results - but don't write an incredibly nuanced and subjective plethora of laws that are designed to 'get around' the concept in the first place Yes, I agree. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 906 #20 January 18, 2011 I'd almost prefer someone with a weapon use illegal drugs than some of the crap they prescribe these days. almost. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #21 January 18, 2011 Quote If, however, someone has proven they will not break _any_ laws, then they will be less likely to break them in the future. Hmm.... trying to think of anyone I know who has never broken _any_ laws........ Can't think of even one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 906 #22 January 18, 2011 He did say he didn't inhale. Nor have sexual relations with that woman. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #23 January 18, 2011 Quote Quote If, however, someone has proven they will not break _any_ laws, then they will be less likely to break them in the future. Hmm.... trying to think of anyone I know who has never broken _any_ laws........ Can't think of even one. I don't suppose you are forgetting Barry and his cocaine use are you? They still let him have the biggest guns this country has.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
regulator 0 #24 January 18, 2011 Quote Quote Quote If, however, someone has proven they will not break _any_ laws, then they will be less likely to break them in the future. Hmm.... trying to think of anyone I know who has never broken _any_ laws........ Can't think of even one. I don't suppose you are forgetting Barry and his cocaine use are you? They still let him have the biggest guns this country has. -------------------------------------------------------- You know I still remember the Marion Barry issue. He got busted with hookers and cocaine...but do you know what his excuse was? He said...(not in exact words but pretty much like this ) if you stick a man...ANY MAN in a motel room with cocaine and hookers...that man WILL fuck hookers AND smoke rocks. Guess it worked because he got re-elected! Goes to show how corrupt washington dc really is. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #25 January 18, 2011 Seems like our current president admitted to illegal drug use. Alcohol is a drug that is abused quite a bit. Would a prior DUI (proof of abuse) disqualify you for a firearm? I would bet large sums of money that many on capital hill did illegal drugs in their youth. I am one of the very few people I have ever known that has never done an illegal substance. How far would you like to step down this slope?I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
