Ban on Marijuana Users Owning Guns is Unconstitutional

[Crazytrain]

Hmm, wasn’t aware marijuana consumption was a constitutional right.

The Constitution doesn't grant rights. Rights are natural. The Constitution defines the nature of our government and the powers and responsibilities bestowed upon it, while the Bill of Rights, by many founders considered redundant, further restricts the power of the government to infringe on them. Just because something isn't specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights doesn't mean that the government can legitimately legislate rights away.

You have the natural right to do with your property as you wish so long as you don't violate the rights of others. You own nothing so much as your own self. Unless you are owned by others. That's called slavery and is prohibited by the 13th amendment to the Constitution. So, in a roundabout way, I'd say it is protected by the Constitution, even if, like many things, it is illegitimately infringed upon.

 

[Boondock Saint]

The Constitution doesn't grant rights. Rights are natural. The Constitution defines the nature of our government and the powers and responsibilities bestowed upon it, while the Bill of Rights, by many founders considered redundant, further restricts the power of the government to infringe on them. Just because something isn't specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights doesn't mean that the government can legitimately legislate rights away.

You have the natural right to do with your property as you wish so long as you don't violate the rights of others. You own nothing so much as your own self. Unless you are owned by others. That's called slavery and is prohibited by the 13th amendment to the Constitution. So, in a roundabout way, I'd say it is protected by the Constitution, even if, like many things, it is illegitimately infringed upon.

Yep. It's really quite simple.

See further the 9A:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

 

[Crazytrain]

Yep. It's really quite simple.

See further the 9A:

Oh, jeez, I was trying to be so clever with the slavery thing I completely forgot about the 9th.

Oh, and for what it's worth, I agree with eruby. Even if you are drinking or smoking or shooting meth you don't lose your right to armed self defense. It can be argued whether it is wise to carry if impaired (or just having a glass of wine with dinner), but mere possession of a weapon should not be a crime. However, you are always fully responsible for the consequences of exercising your right. I know most here disagree.

 

[Boondock Saint]

Oh, jeez, I was trying to be so clever with the slavery thing I completely forgot about the 9th.

Oh, and for what it's worth, I agree with eruby. Even if you are drinking or smoking or shooting meth you don't lose your right to armed self defense. It can be argued whether it is wise to carry if impaired (or just having a glass of wine with dinner), but mere possession of a weapon should not be a crime. However, you are always fully responsible for the consequences of exercising your right. I know most here disagree.

You'll get no argument from me on the matter.

 

[Worsley]

The Constitution doesn't grant rights. Rights are natural. The Constitution defines the nature of our government and the powers and responsibilities bestowed upon it, while the Bill of Rights, by many founders considered redundant, further restricts the power of the government to infringe on them. Just because something isn't specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights doesn't mean that the government can legitimately legislate rights away.

You have the natural right to do with your property as you wish so long as you don't violate the rights of others. You own nothing so much as your own self. Unless you are owned by others. That's called slavery and is prohibited by the 13th amendment to the Constitution. So, in a roundabout way, I'd say it is protected by the Constitution, even if, like many things, it is illegitimately infringed upon.

So the ability to drive drunk is a natural right and is only a crime if/when me doing so hurts someone. Got it.

 

[Inigoes]

So the ability to drive drunk is a natural right and is only a crime if/when me doing so hurts someone. Got it.

You have the ability to choose.

I would suggest that you choose wisely.

If you choose otherwise, you may hurt someone and endure any consequence that goes with it,

 

[Boondock Saint]

So the ability to drive drunk is a natural right and is only a crime if/when me doing so hurts someone. Got it.

Every crime needs a victim. No victim, no crime. https://www.mdshooters.com/threads/every-crime-needs-a-victim-laurence-vance.174901/

 

[Bob A]

You have the natural right to do with your property as you wish so long as you don't violate the rights of others. You own nothing so much as your own self. Unless you are owned by others. That's called slavery and is prohibited by the 13th amendment to the Constitution.

If you consider your body to be your property, you presumably have the right to to to it and with it whatever you please, so long as it creates no harm to others.

Sounds like trans-sexuality, abortion, drugging, drinking and fornicating for profit would fall into that area. Probably even more that I haven't thought of.

I can see a lot of heads exploding at the thought of that level of extended freedom.

 

[eruby]

So the ability to drive drunk is a natural right and is only a crime if/when me doing so hurts someone. Got it.

Yes. Yes it is.

Every crime needs a victim. No victim, no crime.

Bingo.

Freedom can be beautiful, or very ugly.

As it should be.

 

[Worsley]

At best, this ban is racist.

 

[joppaj]

At best, this ban is racist.

How so? Pot advocates tell us that use is widespread across all facets of American culture.

 

[Worsley]

How so? Pot advocates tell us that use is widespread across all facets of American culture.

“Pot Advocates”

 

[Crazytrain]

If you consider your body to be your property, you presumably have the right to to to it and with it whatever you please, so long as it creates no harm to others.

Sounds like trans-sexuality, abortion, drugging, drinking and fornicating for profit would fall into that area. Probably even more that I haven't thought of.

I can see a lot of heads exploding at the thought of that level of extended freedom.

The only thing on your list that is debatable in my mind is abortion, and that is because of the question of when life, or perhaps personhood, begins and when that life attains rights. I've had an internal debate going on this for years, but lean towards the protection of the unborn since they can't protect themselves. Because I know it will come up... Children have all rights but not the ability to responsibly exercise them. Their parents or guardians are responsible to properly protect and exercise those rights until the child is physically and mentally able to handle the responsibility.

 

[Bob A]

The only thing on your list that is debatable in my mind is abortion, and that is because of the question of when life, or perhaps personhood, begins and when that life attains rights. I've had an internal debate going on this for years, but lean towards the protection of the unborn since they can't protect themselves. Because I know it will come up... Children have all rights but not the ability to responsibly exercise them. Their parents or guardians are responsible to properly protect and exercise those rights until the child is physically and mentally able to handle the responsibility.

I understand your concern on that subject, and I want to point out that I was in no way aiming my words at you in particular, as I'm reasonably sure you understand. It was your statement that I addressed, not your person.

That said, I'm inclined to assume that someone who would kill her unborn child woud prbably not be the best parent, at least under the circumstances under consideration. I also tend to avoid making other peoples' problems my own, and prefer to allow them to make their own mistakes, and suffer their own consequences. I have enough of a burden bearing my own responsibilities.

 

[teratos]

How so? Pot advocates tell us that use is widespread across all facets of American culture.

I believe it is. I don’t partake in the Devil’s Lettuce, but have in the past. I am for it being legal.

In my profession, I have a front row seat to the shitshow that is life. People tell me all kinds of crazy stuff. When I first started, I was astonished at the number of people from all walks of life who smoke doobers. From people who live in a van down by river, to CEOs.

 

[joppaj]

I believe it is. I don’t partake in the Devil’s Lettuce, but have in the past. I am for it being legal.

In my profession, I have a front row seat to the shitshow that is life. People tell me all kinds of crazy stuff. When I first started, I was astonished at the number of people from all walks of life who smoke doobers. From people who live in a van down by river, to CEOs.

I remember you saying that you saw broad use amongst patients.

 

[teratos]

I remember you saying that you saw broad use amongst patients.

All walks of life. A LOT of lawyers.

 

[Huckleberry]

When you're smoking your grass just remember to stay off my damn lawn.

And if the overindulgence of your vices leaves you looking for sympathy from others then you'll find it in the dictionary between sh*t and syphilis.

 

[6-Pack]

I’m still amazed at how some folks have the 1930’s Reefer Madness mentality on this subject.

I don’t partake, but I think it should be legal. Heck, I voted to legalize it.

It’s safer than alcohol from everything I’ve read.

 

[Bob A]

I believe it is. I don’t partake in the Devil’s Lettuce, but have in the past. I am for it being legal.

In my profession, I have a front row seat to the shitshow that is life. People tell me all kinds of crazy stuff. When I first started, I was astonished at the number of people from all walks of life who smoke doobers. From people who live in a van down by river, to CEOs.

I'm astonished at the number of people from all walks of life who would be OK with putting it on the record.

Now that most medical records are digitised and online, you just know that Big Govt is taking it all down. Hunter Biden is the exception, not the rule.