Ever Used Illegal Drugs? Then No Guns For You!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I think there was a guy named PhillyKev that lost his job becuse of posts that he made here - and he was a lawyer.

nah, he lost his job because some rat fuck here called his employer. Couldn't debate Kev straight up, took the cowardly way.

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Quote

I think there was a guy named PhillyKev that lost his job becuse of posts that he made here - and he was a lawyer.

nah, he lost his job because some rat fuck here called his employer. Couldn't debate Kev straight up, took the cowardly way.

People should just be careful - posting stuff here that could be considered "high risk"

I guess I should have just posted the intro and greets section that covers this.

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

[kelpdiver 2]

oh, I don't disagree with the conclusion - I removed my last name and full UPSA # after that. Before I retired (leave of absence?) from the sport, I was easy enough to find through the local DZs. but not so for the knuckle dragging trolls on the net.

But I did want to point out that PK didn't lose his job because of the posts, but rather some asshole's use of them.

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

oh, I don't disagree with the conclusion - I removed my last name and full UPSA # after that. Before I retired (leave of absence?) from the sport, I was easy enough to find through the local DZs. but not so for the knuckle dragging trolls on the net.

But I did want to point out that PK didn't lose his job because of the posts, but rather some asshole's use of them.

As I understand it, it was partly because of the content and partly because of the times and amount he was posting.

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

[doughboyshred 0]

Shit, if I could have fired myself I would have done it a long time ago.

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

You don't come off like a whuffo, you come off like someone that thinks it's the governments responsibility to keep them from harming themselves in their pursuit of happiness or fun.

ROFLMAO ... you don't know me very well. I shall forgive you for making these remarks since you are new. Rest assured Government is the last people I look to towards keeping myself safe.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[quade 4]

Quote

Rest assured Government is the last people I look to towards keeping myself safe.

Well, certainly not the Canadian government! They have those mounted police guys, but they're only useful if you're a chick tied to a railroad track.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[doughboyshred 0]

Quote

Quote

You don't come off like a whuffo, you come off like someone that thinks it's the governments responsibility to keep them from harming themselves in their pursuit of happiness or fun.

ROFLMAO ... you don't know me very well. I shall forgive you for making these remarks since you are new. Rest assured Government is the last people I look to towards keeping myself safe.

Serious question then, why do you support the illegality of drugs? From your posts I got the impression that you think the government should be keeping people from using crack. I don't think anyone should use crack, but I firmly believe that should be a personal decision not one made by the government.

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

Well, certainly not the Canadian government! They have those mounted police guys, but they're only useful if you're a chick tied to a railroad track.

Yeah the Mounties are good for rescuing the hot chick tied to a railroad track. Unfortunately these very same Mounties have a "Taser First Ask Questions Later" if you happen to be a tired Polish immigrant who does not speak a word of English in the Vancouver airport, policy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Dzieka%C5%84ski_Taser_incident
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPe_hf7aBXM

But I digress, Robert Dziekanski and the RCMP have nothing to do will telling the Government you are a drug user when you are applying for a firearm.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Quote

You don't come off like a whuffo, you come off like someone that thinks it's the governments responsibility to keep them from harming themselves in their pursuit of happiness or fun.

ROFLMAO ... you don't know me very well. I shall forgive you for making these remarks since you are new. Rest assured Government is the last people I look to towards keeping myself safe.

Serious question then, why do you support the illegality of drugs? From your posts I got the impression that you think the government should be keeping people from using crack. I don't think anyone should use crack, but I firmly believe that should be a personal decision not one made by the government.

You have run across another one of the usual suspects... gun RIGHTS for all... screw the rights of anyone who wishes to smoke or injest anything into their own bodies that they believe is EVIL... and the long long list of other RIGHTS that they wish to deny people or to abuse those RIGHTS as long as it conforms to the idealogs of the far right.

Only the RIGHTS of anyone including nutters to have a gun count... fuck everyone else

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

You have run across another one of the usual suspects... gun RIGHTS for all... screw the rights of anyone who wishes to smoke or injest anything into their own bodies that they believe is EVIL... and the long long list of other RIGHTS that they wish to deny people or to abuse those RIGHTS as long as it conforms to the idealogs of the far right.

Only the RIGHTS of anyone including nutters to have a gun count... fuck everyone else

so just be be clear - are you supporting the rights of casual or abusive drug users to purchase a gun, or not?

We know that you side against gun rights for anyone that might be mentally suspect, so it seems that you should also oppose drug users have the right.

[regulator 0]

I'm pretty sure this is for people that have been BUSTED for drugs and have it on their record...otherwise how would they know? I'm not pissing in a cup for anyone to get a fucking gun.

[doughboyshred 0]

Quote

I'm pretty sure this is for people that have been BUSTED for drugs and have it on their record...otherwise how would they know? I'm not pissing in a cup for anyone to get a fucking gun.

I thought I read that it mandated the military to turn over the name of any applicants that admitted drug use on their application. I was honest (I know, stupid), so I guess I'm one of the guys that shouldn't have a gun. Ridiculous.

Schumer's a fucking idiot.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I'm pretty sure this is for people that have been BUSTED for drugs and have it on their record...otherwise how would they know? I'm not pissing in a cup for anyone to get a fucking gun.

the point of this proposal is that if one ever says yes in any form of government interview that they used drugs, that they would be blacklisted.

It's, as typical of Schumer's gun control theories, vague in actual execution details. Does it count if you ate a brownie in Amsterdam? That's not a crime, but it's still pot consumption.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

You have run across another one of the usual suspects... gun RIGHTS for all... screw the rights of anyone who wishes to smoke or injest anything into their own bodies that they believe is EVIL... and the long long list of other RIGHTS that they wish to deny people or to abuse those RIGHTS as long as it conforms to the idealogs of the far right.

Only the RIGHTS of anyone including nutters to have a gun count... fuck everyone else

so just be be clear - are you supporting the rights of casual or abusive drug users to purchase a gun, or not?

We know that you side against gun rights for anyone that might be mentally suspect, so it seems that you should also oppose drug users have the right.

If you are so vociferous in your support of the 2nd Amendment RIGHTS, why are you and the others here not just as vociferous in your support of all the OTHER rights we supposedly had?

It seems that so very many of our RIGHTS as delineated by our Founding Fathers are limited and trampled on, and the Christian Right wishes to legislate and trample on even more based on THEIR view of morality.

[davjohns 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

You have run across another one of the usual suspects... gun RIGHTS for all... screw the rights of anyone who wishes to smoke or injest anything into their own bodies that they believe is EVIL... and the long long list of other RIGHTS that they wish to deny people or to abuse those RIGHTS as long as it conforms to the idealogs of the far right.

Only the RIGHTS of anyone including nutters to have a gun count... fuck everyone else

so just be be clear - are you supporting the rights of casual or abusive drug users to purchase a gun, or not?

We know that you side against gun rights for anyone that might be mentally suspect, so it seems that you should also oppose drug users have the right.

If you are so vociferous in your support of the 2nd Amendment RIGHTS, why are you and the others here not just as vociferous in your support of all the OTHER rights we supposedly had?

It seems that so very many of our RIGHTS as delineated by our Founding Fathers are limited and trampled on, and the Christian Right wishes to legislate and trample on even more based on THEIR view of morality.

I see a leap of inference here.

There is nothing in the US Constitution securing a right to ingest substances. While I have no problem with you getting high so long as you aren't living on my tax dollars or endangering anyone, I don't see that you have a right to it. To compare that to the right to keep and bear arms is ludicrous.

I whole heartedly support all of the rights delineated by the Founding Fathers. Who herein has not?

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.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

You have run across another one of the usual suspects... gun RIGHTS for all... screw the rights of anyone who wishes to smoke or injest anything into their own bodies that they believe is EVIL... and the long long list of other RIGHTS that they wish to deny people or to abuse those RIGHTS as long as it conforms to the idealogs of the far right.

Only the RIGHTS of anyone including nutters to have a gun count... fuck everyone else

so just be be clear - are you supporting the rights of casual or abusive drug users to purchase a gun, or not?

We know that you side against gun rights for anyone that might be mentally suspect, so it seems that you should also oppose drug users have the right.

If you are so vociferous in your support of the 2nd Amendment RIGHTS, why are you and the others here not just as vociferous in your support of all the OTHER rights we supposedly had?

It seems that so very many of our RIGHTS as delineated by our Founding Fathers are limited and trampled on, and the Christian Right wishes to legislate and trample on even more based on THEIR view of morality.

So are you going to answer my question or not? Didn't your mother tell you it's rude to answer a question with a question? I'll answer your's afterwards.

Your non answer implies that you're fine seeing crackheads buy guns. But a prozac user - fuck no!

[thrillstalker 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

You have run across another one of the usual suspects... gun RIGHTS for all... screw the rights of anyone who wishes to smoke or injest anything into their own bodies that they believe is EVIL... and the long long list of other RIGHTS that they wish to deny people or to abuse those RIGHTS as long as it conforms to the idealogs of the far right.

Only the RIGHTS of anyone including nutters to have a gun count... fuck everyone else

so just be be clear - are you supporting the rights of casual or abusive drug users to purchase a gun, or not?

We know that you side against gun rights for anyone that might be mentally suspect, so it seems that you should also oppose drug users have the right.

If you are so vociferous in your support of the 2nd Amendment RIGHTS, why are you and the others here not just as vociferous in your support of all the OTHER rights we supposedly had?

It seems that so very many of our RIGHTS as delineated by our Founding Fathers are limited and trampled on, and the Christian Right wishes to legislate and trample on even more based on THEIR view of morality.

I see a leap of inference here.

There is nothing in the US Constitution securing a right to ingest substances. While I have no problem with you getting high so long as you aren't living on my tax dollars or endangering anyone, I don't see that you have a right to it. To compare that to the right to keep and bear arms is ludicrous.

I whole heartedly support all of the rights delineated by the Founding Fathers. Who herein has not?

the founding fathers grew pot, whole fields of it. it was even required by law in some places to grow hemp.

"Never grow a wishbone, where your backbone ought to be."

[davjohns 1]

The Founding Fathers participated in duels, had children out of wedlock with slaves, owned slaves, ran around drunk and participated in lots of things that are not rights and are not mentioned in the constitution. Are you really suggesting that if Founding Fathers participated, there is a constitutional right to that activity?

Really?

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.

[normiss 906]

Sounds like a DZ.....

[DanG 1]

Quote

There is nothing in the US Constitution securing a right to ingest substances. While I have no problem with you getting high so long as you aren't living on my tax dollars or endangering anyone, I don't see that you have a right to it.

The Bill of Rights does not grant us our rights, it specifies which rights may not be taken away under any circumstance short of Constitutional amendment. The Constitution does not grant us rights.

No, the Founders did not list the right to ingest substances as a right that may not be taken, but that doesn't mean that they did not intend us to have that right.

Yes, I know you are a lawyer. No, I don't do drugs.

- Dan G

[davjohns 1]

I stopped a moment to consider your argument. I will continue to consider it. I think (as a libertarian) it has merit. However, to lump these unenumerated 'rights' with the enumerated rights such as the second amendment guarantees, is preposterous. That was my point.

Nonetheless, I will admit that people should have greater rights than those enumerated. Personally, I think much of the US Code is extra constitutional and government at all levels has long since overstepped the bounds envisioned by men such as Thomas Jefferson. Sadly, the US Supreme Court does not agree.

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.

[thrillstalker 0]

Quote

The Founding Fathers participated in duels, had children out of wedlock with slaves, owned slaves, ran around drunk and participated in lots of things that are not rights and are not mentioned in the constitution. Are you really suggesting that if Founding Fathers participated, there is a constitutional right to that activity?

Really?

hell no.

you brought up being high and the founding fathers. i just said they did that. it is all about perspective, and the modern government has strayed so far from the founding father's perspective that the constitution is a different thing now than it was then.

i believe it is a personal choice whether or not to do "drugs." it is my choice, not my governments. what i do to and with my own body should be 100% my choice. i believe that my rights stop where yours start, so as long as i am not hurting others then it's all good.

did you know that alcohol is more destructive than both cocaine and heroin. http://www.tribune.com.ng/index.php/your-health/13958-alcohol-worse-than-heroin-cocaine

maybe the gov should outlaw guns to anyone who has imbibed alcohol. where do you draw the line because just because it is legal, doesn't mean it is any less devastating than crack, cocaine, heroin.

oxycotin is a legal prescription drug. it is WORSE than heroin. maybe the gov should outlaw guns to anyone who has ever taken an opiate based pain pill, or xanex, or klonopin, etc etc.

this is more bullshit that our government is trying to get away with.

just goes to show what our government thinks they know. our government gives the illusion of freedom, but they are taking away more and more daily, and for bullshit reasons none the less. if we cant defend ourselves, there is nothing keeping them from coming and taking the little bit of dignity and few rights we have left.

"Never grow a wishbone, where your backbone ought to be."

[billvon 3,132]

>where do you draw the line because just because it is legal, doesn't mean it
>is any less devastating than crack, cocaine, heroin.

It doesn't have anything to do with "how devastating" it is. It has to do with people's willingness to obey the law. In the hands of someone who is law-abiding, a gun can confer protection. In the hands of a criminal who has committed serious crimes previously, it's a lot more likely to be used for criminal purposes.

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Not that my opinion on how society should exists matters since I am not a politician, I am not a lobbyist, I am not a media personality, I am not a educator indoctrinating the next generation into my political idealology and finally and most importantly I am not a member of the Bilderberg Group. I am just like everyone else here, someone with an opinion.

It is ridiculous for soft drugs such as pot to be treated any different than alcohol. But hard drugs like crack destroy lives. For all of you who want drugs like crack to be legalized, I am on board with your decision only under one circumstance. People must take responsibility for their own health. If you people believe that it is the right of everyone to consume anything they want, then there should be no public healthcare, no public social programs for anyone. Nada, nothing. Let people deal with their actions. If someone wants to turn themselves into a "Dawn of the Dead" zombie because it was their right to feed their body with these destructive drugs, then let them deal with the consequences.

Sounds absurd doesn't it? Sounds like anarchy. Funny how a certain segment of the population demands that destructive drugs be legalized and yet these very same people are demanding their nanny state. Well you can't have your cake and eat it at the same time. There is either anarchy "anything goes" or there are guidelines law abiding people must follow. If legalizing hard drugs such as crack is so important to some of you people, what are you doing here on the DorkZone. Why aren't you in Washington lobbying the messiah savior of the world to legalize them?

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over