Gun registration v Plant registration...

[IlarMeilyr]

The SECOND AMENDMENT CLEARLY prohibits any denial of the right of the people to have and bear cannabis.







Oh.


Wait.

 

[DNAprotection]

The SECOND AMENDMENT CLEARLY prohibits any denial of the right of the people to have and bear cannabis.







Oh.


Wait.

lol cute, but what about the 9th amendment or even the 14th?

 

[RDD_1210]

Yes. what ever could go wrong with allowing the unrestricted growing of illegal dangerous drugs?

Please apply this same "logic" and that's a very loose term with you to the ownership of guns.

 

[RDD_1210]

Registration in an infringement.
The Constitution specifically precludes infringement of the right to arms.
The other things brought up in the OP? Not so much.

Registration is not an infringement.

 

[DNAprotection]

Registration in an infringement.
The Constitution specifically precludes infringement of the right to arms.
The other things brought up in the OP? Not so much.

Registration is not an infringement.

if it becomes an impediment than its an infringement...
for example you can apply to the DEA (diversion division) for a permit/registration to grow cannabis or poppies or coca etc but after a couple years of making you chase your tail they will simply deny you lol...
how is that not infringement?
if you want to engage in commerce then give Caesar what is Caesars, but if you are just doing for yourself its your human right to do so whether you claim it or not...
the constitution merely protects inherent rights, it doesnt 'grant' them lol, in other words your human rights exist in perpetuity emanating from nature just as the declaration of independence declares...

 

[OriginalShroom]

until there is an objective and standardized testing to determine the amount of THC that is in a person's system and a legal limit is set by law, there should not be legalzation Marijanuna for anything except strictly controlled medical use.

If an adult is sitting in their own living room in their own house, what difference does the level of THC in their system make and why is it any of your business?

May I suggest an objective standard? If a person infringes on the rights of another (takes what doesn't belong to them, hurts someone, etc) and they have any THC in their system, feel free to advocate for harsher punishment under the law or higher civil penalties. That way, we're sending the message that doing drugs is a potentially dangerous activity that can lead to negative consequences...without screwing with the guy in his living room that hasn't harmed a soul.

Whatda say?

If you want to sit in your house and get stoned and then stay there until you are completely sober again, fine. Just as I don't carte if you sit in your house and get as Drunk as Cooter's skunk.

But you sit in your house and get stoned or drunk then go out in public, especially operating a motor vehicle, then I do care.

I have already lost one friend to a stoned driver, I don't want to lose another.

Molon Labe

 

[Katzndogz]

until there is an objective and standardized testing to determine the amount of THC that is in a person's system and a legal limit is set by law, there should not be legalzation Marijanuna for anything except strictly controlled medical use.

If an adult is sitting in their own living room in their own house, what difference does the level of THC in their system make and why is it any of your business?

May I suggest an objective standard? If a person infringes on the rights of another (takes what doesn't belong to them, hurts someone, etc) and they have any THC in their system, feel free to advocate for harsher punishment under the law or higher civil penalties. That way, we're sending the message that doing drugs is a potentially dangerous activity that can lead to negative consequences...without screwing with the guy in his living room that hasn't harmed a soul.

Whatda say?

As long as they never leave their living room and there is no one else in the home, especially children or pets, I'm fine with it.

 

[RDD_1210]

Registration in an infringement.
The Constitution specifically precludes infringement of the right to arms.
The other things brought up in the OP? Not so much.

Registration is not an infringement.

if it becomes an impediment than its an infringement...
for example you can apply to the DEA (diversion division) for a permit/registration to grow cannabis or poppies or coca etc but after a couple years of making you chase your tail they will simply deny you lol...
how is that not infringement?
if you want to engage in commerce then give Caesar what is Caesars, but if you are just doing for yourself its your human right to do so whether you claim it or not...
the constitution merely protects inherent rights, it doesnt 'grant' them lol, in other words your human rights exist in perpetuity emanating from nature just as the declaration of independence declares...

It's only an impediment for those who aren't capable of carrying a weapon. Ie. criminals and mentally unstable.

So like I said, it's not an infringement.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Registration is not an infringement.

if it becomes an impediment than its an infringement...
for example you can apply to the DEA (diversion division) for a permit/registration to grow cannabis or poppies or coca etc but after a couple years of making you chase your tail they will simply deny you lol...
how is that not infringement?
if you want to engage in commerce then give Caesar what is Caesars, but if you are just doing for yourself its your human right to do so whether you claim it or not...
the constitution merely protects inherent rights, it doesnt 'grant' them lol, in other words your human rights exist in perpetuity emanating from nature just as the declaration of independence declares...

It's only an impediment for those who aren't capable of carrying a weapon. Ie. criminals and mentally unstable.

So like I said, it's not an infringement.

There is no compelling State interest in firearm registration EXCEPT the ability to later confiscate all registered firearms. We have seen how the left views our 2nd Amendment rights. They deny licenses to carry, they confiscate weapons after registration and they work to ban firearms.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Registration in an infringement.
The Constitution specifically precludes infringement of the right to arms.
The other things brought up in the OP? Not so much.

agreed about your first conclusion, but on the other things, not so much...heres why,
the 9th amen...it means what it says:

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

True.... but the 9th does not protect the rights it alludes to. The 2nd does.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Registration in an infringement.
The Constitution specifically precludes infringement of the right to arms.
The other things brought up in the OP? Not so much.

Registration is not an infringement.

if it becomes an impediment than its an infringement...

Even if it does not create an impedimement to the worship of their chosen god(s), registration of those who chooe to exercise their right to practice their religion is an infringement.

His "point", thusly negated, in toto.

 

[g5000]

I would prefer we license gun buyers not guns. I would also prefer we register dope growers, not dope.

You pass a reasonable background check to ensure you aren't a country music fan or an escaped serial killer, and then you can buy all the guns you want, or grow all the dope you want.

You go to a gun seller, and if you are on the list, you get to buy all the guns you want, and the government doesn't have to know what you bought. Because you are pre-approved.

Simple.

 

[DNAprotection]

Registration is not an infringement.

if it becomes an impediment than its an infringement...
for example you can apply to the DEA (diversion division) for a permit/registration to grow cannabis or poppies or coca etc but after a couple years of making you chase your tail they will simply deny you lol...
how is that not infringement?
if you want to engage in commerce then give Caesar what is Caesars, but if you are just doing for yourself its your human right to do so whether you claim it or not...
the constitution merely protects inherent rights, it doesnt 'grant' them lol, in other words your human rights exist in perpetuity emanating from nature just as the declaration of independence declares...

It's only an impediment for those who aren't capable of carrying a weapon. Ie. criminals and mentally unstable.

So like I said, it's not an infringement.

i've noticed you avoid at all costs confronting the question of human rights and the further point of no harm no foul...

 

[DNAprotection]

Registration in an infringement.
The Constitution specifically precludes infringement of the right to arms.
The other things brought up in the OP? Not so much.

agreed about your first conclusion, but on the other things, not so much...heres why,
the 9th amen...it means what it says:

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

True.... but the 9th does not protect the rights it alludes to. The 2nd does.

its up to you and i to define and declare what we know to be our natural born rights...such is just as legitimate as anything that is already specifically enumerated...
the key would be to develop a formula for determining such rights...standards to be used by the courts etc...

 

[DNAprotection]

I would prefer we license gun buyers not guns. I would also prefer we register dope growers, not dope.

You pass a reasonable background check to ensure you aren't a country music fan or an escaped serial killer, and then you can buy all the guns you want, or grow all the dope you want.

You go to a gun seller, and if you are on the list, you get to buy all the guns you want, and the government doesn't have to know what you bought. Because you are pre-approved.

Simple.

the jurisdictional authority you are willing to compromise always has been abused and will always continue to be abused...
why not just stick with the constitution and allow the corpsgov to 'protect' (lol) your right to engage in commerce, but if your just doing for yourself whether its owning guns or growing plants its none of anyone's concern unless your abridging someone else's rights ets...no harm no foul...

 

[eflatminor]

I would prefer we license gun buyers not guns. I would also prefer we register dope growers, not dope.

You pass a reasonable background check to ensure you aren't a country music fan or an escaped serial killer, and then you can buy all the guns you want, or grow all the dope you want.

You go to a gun seller, and if you are on the list, you get to buy all the guns you want, and the government doesn't have to know what you bought. Because you are pre-approved.

Simple.

I would prefer we license readers and not books.

You pass a background check to ensure you aren't a free thinker or a non conformist, and then you can buy all the books you want.

You go to a book dealer, and if you are on the list, you get to buy all the books you want, and the government doesn't have to know what you bought. Because you are pre-approved.

Simple.

Excellent plan comrade...

 

[DNAprotection]

I would prefer we license gun buyers not guns. I would also prefer we register dope growers, not dope.

You pass a reasonable background check to ensure you aren't a country music fan or an escaped serial killer, and then you can buy all the guns you want, or grow all the dope you want.

You go to a gun seller, and if you are on the list, you get to buy all the guns you want, and the government doesn't have to know what you bought. Because you are pre-approved.

Simple.

I would prefer we license readers and not books.

You pass a background check to ensure you aren't a free thinker or a non conformist, and then you can buy all the books you want.

You go to a book dealer, and if you are on the list, you get to buy all the books you want, and the government doesn't have to know what you bought. Because you are pre-approved.

Simple.

Excellent plan comrade...

aside from it coming in handy in showing that breaking bad from under the kings rule was justified and contractual etc...
the whole point of killing all those natives and slaving anyone vulnerable in the birthing of this country was to for the first time establish that humans (white male property owners) were born with certain rights and that gov and constitution exists to protect those rights, yet today most folks seem impervious to the fact that they hold such rights...

 

[RDD_1210]

if it becomes an impediment than its an infringement...
for example you can apply to the DEA (diversion division) for a permit/registration to grow cannabis or poppies or coca etc but after a couple years of making you chase your tail they will simply deny you lol...
how is that not infringement?
if you want to engage in commerce then give Caesar what is Caesars, but if you are just doing for yourself its your human right to do so whether you claim it or not...
the constitution merely protects inherent rights, it doesnt 'grant' them lol, in other words your human rights exist in perpetuity emanating from nature just as the declaration of independence declares...

It's only an impediment for those who aren't capable of carrying a weapon. Ie. criminals and mentally unstable.

So like I said, it's not an infringement.

There is no compelling State interest in firearm registration EXCEPT the ability to later confiscate all registered firearms. We have seen how the left views our 2nd Amendment rights. They deny licenses to carry, they confiscate weapons after registration and they work to ban firearms.

LOL ok nutjob.

 

[RDD_1210]

if it becomes an impediment than its an infringement...
for example you can apply to the DEA (diversion division) for a permit/registration to grow cannabis or poppies or coca etc but after a couple years of making you chase your tail they will simply deny you lol...
how is that not infringement?
if you want to engage in commerce then give Caesar what is Caesars, but if you are just doing for yourself its your human right to do so whether you claim it or not...
the constitution merely protects inherent rights, it doesnt 'grant' them lol, in other words your human rights exist in perpetuity emanating from nature just as the declaration of independence declares...

It's only an impediment for those who aren't capable of carrying a weapon. Ie. criminals and mentally unstable.

So like I said, it's not an infringement.

i've noticed you avoid at all costs confronting the question of human rights and the further point of no harm no foul...

Owning a gun isn't a human right.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

It's only an impediment for those who aren't capable of carrying a weapon. Ie. criminals and mentally unstable.

So like I said, it's not an infringement.

i've noticed you avoid at all costs confronting the question of human rights and the further point of no harm no foul...

Owning a gun isn't a human right.

It is a Constitutionally guaranteed right.