It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

If you support the second amendment, you must oppose drug prohibition

page: 3
21
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 01:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
Which basic unalienable right do drugs support?

Guns support our basic unalienable right to defend our person and property which we also have a right to.


The right to do what I choose with my own property, myself. My right to pursue happiness. My right to do what I want in the comfort of my own home.




posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 02:23 AM
link   
Guns and dope.
You don't like it, get yer ass up the road.



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 06:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim

originally posted by: ketsuko
Which basic unalienable right do drugs support?

Guns support our basic unalienable right to defend our person and property which we also have a right to.


Your right to self-determination.


Yea the right of self-determination has to do with the people of a nation being able to demonstrate sovereignty over themselves, and nothing to do with you as an individual being able to do whatever you want.

There is no amendment or clause that specifically pertains to drug use. There is one about keeping and bearing arms.

You should probably do some actual research before you start trying to make constitutional arguments about it. And this is coming from somebody who isn't a big fan of the war on drugs.
edit on 18-6-2016 by Shamrock6 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 07:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim

originally posted by: ketsuko
Which basic unalienable right do drugs support?

Guns support our basic unalienable right to defend our person and property which we also have a right to.


Your right to self-determination.


Which one is a more integral tool to maintaining your right to self-determine: recreational drugs or a firearm?


Why must I choose?


Ahhh... The trillion dollar question!!



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 09:32 AM
link   
The Second isn't about the right to bear arms. Instead, it uses the right to justify the formation of militias regulated by the government.



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 09:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: JohnnyElohim

I'm just saying that I think trying to compare the two in importance is like comparing the importance of having a fully stocked DVD collection without actually having a DVD player. You cannot really enjoy the one without the other because the one just eclipses the other that much in importance.

Or you need to maintain your right to keep and bear in order to maintain any chance you have of ever wresting your right to dope yourself silly. Otherwise, you are simply asking your tyrants pretty please with sugar on top and have no real power of your own left to make them actually listen to you.


But the comparison of importance doesn't matter much at all, does it? I'm not asking which you would give up first. I'm saying you can't, with any real rigor of thought or philosophical honesty, support one without the other. You are presenting a false dilemma.


No, I am saying that the one provides the foundation for the other.

Look, you may or may not think that you have every right to pierce your tongue and dye your hair bright purple, but so long as you were living in your parents' home ... they had the final say as to whether or not you got to do it because you had no guarantee of your rights then. It was their home; they paid all the bills. You were beholden to what they allowed you to do.

You didn't actually get to exercise that privilege to pierce your tongue and dye your hair until you got out on your own.

This works the same.

You may want to dope yourself silly, but so long as the government has ultimate power over you, it doesn't matter what you, I, or anyone else believes about dope. And without the means to mount a serious rebellion to that ultimate authority to establish your independence and rights, whatever any of us believes about our privilege to dope ourselves silly doesn't matter.

If you will note, I have not said one thing or the other about what I ultimately believe about drug legalization on this thread. I have only said that your belief in legalization matters not one whit if you don't support guns and that your freedom to keep and bear is magnitudes more important and why. And what I think about your desire to dope yourself silly is quite aside from what I may or may not think about legalization.



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 09:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: monkeyluv
The Second isn't about the right to bear arms. Instead, it uses the right to justify the formation of militias regulated by the government.


Please understand the 18th Century definition of "regulated" means "orderly" as in "trained".....not under regulatory laws as the modern definition implies. Context is everything when interpreting the Constitution.

These are snippets from an 18th Century dictionary, which provides the definitions as the founders understood them and meant them in that document.






posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 09:58 AM
link   
Great point to bring up, OP.

I've always found it "funny," that Conservatives absolutely ensure that "the few does not represent the whole," when it comes to gun ownership. It's an inalienable right, fear-mongering scare tacticsdoes not work, etc etc

But when it comes to cannabis - and I'm not even talking about a psychoactive substance that emulates the feeling of being "high," I'm talking about the industrialized uses of hemp - conservatives loose their mind and go on and on about "the dope," and how "ITZ RUINING THE MORAL FIBRE OF MAH COUNTRY," yet anyone with half of a brain knows that legal drugs (alcohol, cigarettes, narcotics) do FAR more damage that cannabis ever could - and again, I'm talking about the HEMP industry.

I've always wondered this OP and have yet to be given a somewhat reasonable answer. If adults are "responsible," enough to drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes, and own firearms - why can they not grow hemp or smoke cannabis?

Because people crave and gravitate towards authoritarianism. They just LOVE the feeling of dictating to millions of consenting adults what they can/can't do in their own free time, with their own body, in their homes, with their own money.

The Conservative viewpoints on cannabis and why it should remain a Class 1 Schedule Drug makes about as much sense as Democrats wanting to ban guns that way criminals (who don't follow laws) will stop killing people.

However - guns are a bit more dangerous (LOL more than a bit) than cannabis, and I just cannot be sold on the notion that I should entrust each and every American to be a responsible gun owner and to always have the right to own but that "pot needs to be illegal because it's bad."

It's honestly one of the more silly arguments I've ever heard in my life and no one ever bothers addressing it.

In Amerika, cannabis is more dangerous than guns! Is about how I read it.



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 10:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: ketsuko
Which basic unalienable right do drugs support?

Guns support our basic unalienable right to defend our person and property which we also have a right to.


The right to do what I choose with my own property, myself. My right to pursue happiness. My right to do what I want in the comfort of my own home.


All of which are kept that way by your right to keep and bear.

Without your right to secure what you list, you only and ever only hold those things at the pleasure of the government. In other words, what should be your servant becomes your master.

Having the right to keep and bear puts some of the responsibility for maintaining those on your shoulders, not solely in the hands of the government.

In other words, would you be a dog or a wolf?



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 10:11 AM
link   
you also support reducing the military to minimal defensive capabilities and should join a local militia

the framers had just won a war against a professional standing army used for imperialism and wanted a defensive only military after that

they would be shocked to see how much we look like King George's England today and citizens armed with military weapons using the 2nd as cover



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 10:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: monkeyluv
The Second isn't about the right to bear arms. Instead, it uses the right to justify the formation of militias regulated by the government.


That is not at all what "well regulated" meant to the framers.

At all.



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 10:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: monkeyluv
The Second isn't about the right to bear arms. Instead, it uses the right to justify the formation of militias regulated by the government.




Further broken down:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,"

That's an incomplete declarative sentence. The comma separates the declaration from the purpose of the sentence as a whole.

There is no "well regulated" clause. It's a declarative statement. You could pull the first word 'A' and make it a clause and it would still be without meaning.

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

That sentence give meaning to the declaration. The militia is the people. Sufficiently armed and equipped, and the right of the people to keep and bear those arms shall not be infringed.

Basic structure of English. Even for 1791 when the Second Amendment was ratified.

At no point does the declarative portion of this sentence confer any conditions. The only condition expressed in the second amendment is that the government will not infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Next you'll tell us all about how the second amendment only applies to muskets because the Founders were too stupid to conceptualize anything more advanced, right?

Well you'd be wrong there too.

Look up the Puckle Gun and the Girandoni Air Rifle.



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 10:36 AM
link   
"inalienable right"

I see this over and over with guns.

Jefferson listed 3 inalienable rights, and arms isn't one of them

and if you all hopped up on the bill of rights, you have to also support a muslims rights

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 10:40 AM
link   
a reply to: syrinx high priest




"inalienable right" I see this over and over with guns. Jefferson listed 3 inalienable rights, and arms isn't one of them


The language of the second amendment presumes a preexisting right. That right is self defense, and the tools of that defense are the most effective arms of the time. Yesterday that was the musket. Today it's the AR15.




and if you all hopped up on the bill of rights, you have to also support a muslims rights "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"


Muslims in this country have every right to enjoy the fruits of our nation as much as you and I.

BTW, all that the first amendment states with that sentence is that there will never be an official state religion.



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 10:49 AM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

And to extend that thought of the 1st preventing the government from establishing an official state/government religion, it also includes all workers for the state, while acting in their roles FOR the state. In essence, a government worker is the embodiment of the state, and must also follow the same laws and restrictions as the state. This is why there was such a furor over that woman city clerk that refused to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. In her official role working as a state representative (city/state/federal all need to comply with the same constitutional restrictions) she was establishing an official state religion by claiming her religion prevents her from performing her job.

I know this is a bit off-topic, but is relevant to provide an example of what the constitution means. It is a document that outlines the restrictions on the GOVERNMENT, not the citizens. IT does NOT grant rights, but protect inherent rights every human inherits upon their birth, regardless of race, creed, color, religion, sexual preference, etc....




edit on 6/18/2016 by Krakatoa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 12:21 PM
link   
I see the point. I won't contest it. Is that good enough?

Now ... when someone raging on drugs walks towards me and I have no way of determining what's about to happen ... can I just draw and blow his/her head off their shoulders without risk of legal repercussion?



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 12:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: syrinx high priest

they would be shocked to see ... citizens armed with military weapons using the 2nd as cover


How so?

Back then, all capable citizens were expected to be armed and able to enforce laws. This was long before the country had such a large and powerful police force, though.

I think they'd be more shocked to see that we have given so much power to the police/government instead of taking responsibility for ourselves.



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 12:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
Having the right to keep and bear puts some of the responsibility for maintaining those on your shoulders, not solely in the hands of the government.

In other words, would you be a dog or a wolf?


That's fine with me. I have no problem with taking responsibility in protecting my own Rights when the Gov. isn't willing or able to do it for me.

That's what the OP is saying too IMO. That if we are willing to allow people to have weapons with the idea that they can be responsible enough with them then we should also allow the same personal responsibility with Drug use too. Otherwise it's a massive double standard and even one which is radically unbalanced on who the victim is going to be. Drugs primarily hurt the one using them while gun are made to hurt others. But we allow guns and not drugs.



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 12:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Snarl

If that person "raging on drugs" was about to attack you and you felt your life was seriously threatened, then, yes. You have the right to protect yourself in a LIFE THREATENING situation. The key is that you MUST feel this person is threatening your very life (or the life of another) first. If you do not, then you are not justified in even drawing your weapon. Also, if you do NOT intentionally shoot to kill, but just to wound, a court of law will deem that you did not feel your life was threatened enough to shoot. At that point, you will be charged with manslaughter at the least.

That is how the law works.....like it or not. Shooting to wound is only legal in the movies. Better you learn that now than find out afterwards.



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 12:40 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

But, as has been said, the right to drugs is currently not clearly defined as one of those inalienable rights, afforded protection by the constitution. That, is the big difference here. If enough people feel that it should be, then there is a process in place to amend the constitution and have it added. If, that is, enough people feel strongly enough and can convince enough of the states to approve that amendment. It has been done, less that 100 years ago even. So, it is not impossible.



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join