BIGGEST TRIGGER -- Gun Ownership - Cannabis Legality - Aborting Babies.

a reply to: carewemust

None of the above. The debt is my biggest concern. It just keeps going up. How we going to pay it back?

a reply to: underwerks

Why do I get the feeling you don't fully read your own links, but rather cherry pick the words that trigger you?

On Tuesday, Sessions told a Washington ballroom packed with state attorneys general – many of them in charge of defending laws that conflict with federal prohibition – that pot legalization should be resisted, though he did not describe any specific plans to challenge state-regulated markets.

“I doubt that’s true. Maybe science will prove I’m wrong, but at this point in time you and I have a responsibility to use our best judgment – that which we’ve learned over a period of years – and speak truth as best we can. My best view is that we don’t need to be legalizing marijuana.”

Exactly where does he say he's coming for your pot again?

Guns= Legal. Probably won't change soon

Abortion= Legal. Probably won't change soon
(In my State, anyway)

Cannabis= Illegal for 70 years, until we the people, finally got fed up and let our voices be heard. Sadly, thousands were incarcerated, labeled as felons and criminals. So many lives ruined, families torn apart, homes and property seized, etc, for what? A natural herb. A plant that makes you calm, relaxed and peaceful. A plant that eases pain and nausea. A plant with so many uses, the possibilities are endless. I'll be damned if I ever let some clown politician tell me what's best for me.

Yeah, I guess you could say I get a bit triggered on the cannabis issue.

a reply to: carewemust


As they all equate to personal liberty, all three are equally necessary and important to me.

a reply to: carewemust

To put them in order, I'd have to say 2nd Amendment first. That is the one thing that is constantly under attack and will require vigilance on our part to maintain it's protection.

Herb is something of the day. It used to be legal and largely ignored by law, then, out of ignorance and greed, it was outlawed. Now, it's the fuel for a massive cartel infested world of crime and power. So by legalizing it at the federal level, you would strike a big hit on organized crime and hopefully, reduce the amount of hard drugs that find their way to the weed dealer.

Abortion is murder and in my eyes always will be. But the crime of taking a life is something the person who makes that decision must live with, not me. So it's not my place to dictate how another person views the value of life. That is between them and their God.

For me personally, I'd rate the gun rights issue my most important social issue and I'm very strongly in favor of gun rights and the right to self-defense in general. I'm not totally opposed to every law on the books, but I do believe that a citizen with a clean background should generally be able to own anything they want that falls under the category of man-portable small arms, plus maybe a few things beyond that as well.

I'm also strongly anti-abortion in most cases, but unlike gun rights, which affects me personally, the abortion issue doesn't. Still, I'd definitely support a law banning the procedure as a means of casual birth control.

The marijuana issue? Maybe I'm a slight lean towards legalization on the basis of individual freedom and that an adult should have the right to make that choice for themselves, and I certainly don't think its any worse than alcohol, but its otherwise a complete non-issue that doesn't affect me in any way. Legalize it, ban it, the issue is completely irrelevant to me.

a reply to: carewemust

None. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

I'm not much for guns myself. I find them boring. I'd rather play D&D, do martial arts, draw comic books or write rock n roll songs. But I don't care if other people enjoy guns, keep guns or pursue gun-related hobbies. In fact -- I actually enjoy trap (?) shooting with my dad.

Pot is next up on the hit list? Ok, cool. I'll admit. I liked it a lot more when I was in my 20's, playing in a band in Hollyweird. Even then, I liked it privately, when I wanted a creative charge. I never enjoyed being high in public. But I don't care if other people do. I mean, as long as they aren't on the road in front of me, or responsible for taking my order at Filibertos. I don't care one way or another if pot is legal or not. To put it in D&D terms, I am neutral good. Law n' order is a TV show, and chaos is for creativity. Too much of either one gives me a metaphysical migraine.

Abortion: I have two kids, who I adore and who are the light of my life. I taught my son D&D at a young age so I could have a built-in DM. He loves most of the things I love: physics, philosophy, puns, games. He is "meh" on the rock n roll, but I don't sweat it. I don't feel entitled to push my conception of good music on everyone I meet, down through the generations. I'm not Hillary Clinton. That said -- I would never presume to tell another human being what they can or can't do with their own body. I would make my feelings known 100% up-front, and if they chose to abort my child, I would wish them well and move on. I don't believe ANYTHING is ever wasted in this universe. I believe that all children who ever will be born, are born, one way or another. God doesn't roll dice (that's my job!) and God doesn't get frustrated with human choices (that's why we divided in the first place -- to "know" ourselves).

These issues are wedge issues because people are scared. They don't feel like they are in the driver's seat in their own lives. When humans feel like they have no control, they do funny things. The most obvious is that they divide up into silly little tribes and pick "teams." When you wake up every day feeling like the world is beating you, you find a way to "win" vicariously. I have nothing but sympathy for the vicarious winners and losers. I figured out decades ago that the human race is divided into two main groups: "makers" and "users." I am all for finding a way to afford pure users a greater sense of purpose, nexus, and autonomy.

We don't have to clash unless they use that purpose to infringe on mine.

a reply to: projectvxn

I'm loving everything about your post man. Keep doing you, it rocks.

a reply to: carewemust

As to gun control people don't require access to assault/military grade weaponry in any first world nation, that's a given.

Marijuana should be legalized for more than just medical purposes given the fact that is far safer than alcohol or tobacco products which are legal.

And abortion should be the woman's choice.

Stands to reason really.

a reply to: carewemust

I'm equally concerned about all three, but only one allows us to protect ourselves from tyranny if the federal government gets too far out of control.

If I were forced to pick, it'd be the non-infringed enforcement of the second amendment, followed by abortion (we need to protect those who cannot protect themselves), and then the personal right to blaze a fatty on my front porch.

originally posted by: andy06shake
As to gun control people don't require access to assault/military grade weaponry in any first world nation, that's a given.

The legal protection to exercise one's right does not demand a "requirement" to do so on behalf of the individual in any way, shape, or form.

That's a given.

Stands to reason, really (and it stands up to SCOTUS rulings, too).

originally posted by: namelesss

originally posted by: carewemust
3. Aborting Babies.

Generally no one 'aborts babies'.
That emotionally laden baggage doesn't help a rational discussion, unless you are trying to bias it somehow.
Fetuses are aborted.
Zygotes are aborted.
'Aborting' a 'baby' is generally considered murder, legally.
I'm sure just an oversight on your part...

Thats just a useful tactic try to detach you from what it happening, just like when the US bombs a wedding and we just call them militants so we dont feel bad. There is no scientific information on the origins of consciousness, we dont know what it is, where it comes from or when it starts. its an opinion that the baby in vitro is considered "only" a fetus. makes killing it easier.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

People, good people, don't require assault grade weaponry to "exercise one's right" to anything.

Keeping in mind said right to bear arms was implemented with muskets in mind way before the inception of modern battlefield weaponry.

Times change, technology progresses, so should your constitution.

a reply to: andy06shake

If the purpose of the 2nd is to empower citizens to exercise their maker-given right to protect themselves from a hostile government, the proper answer is to make weaponized drones, heavy cruisers, air support, and artillery available to everyone.

Or did we change the wording somewhere and I just don't remember the constitutional amendment you are referring to?

a reply to: andy06shake

What the hell is an assault grade weapon?

Have you ever heard of the Puckle gun or the Girandoni Air Rifle?

The founders weren't interested in preserving muskets. They were interested in preserving liberty, which the modern rifle helps to ensure as much as the old musket.

originally posted by: andy06shake
People, good people, don't require assault grade weaponry to "exercise one's right" to anything.

Maybe that's true, maybe it isn't. I don't think I accept it, certainly not the part where you imply that only not-so 'good people' would ever want to own an 'assault weapon', but even if were believe that a person doesn't necessarily need such a firearm, lack of need still doesn't and, IMO, shouldn't preclude their right to own one.

I also disagree that 2A was written with muskets in mind. They were the weapons common at the time of 2A's ratification, but as you say, technology progresses, and the founding fathers knew this. They knew that muskets and the like would one day be obsolete, yet they included no such limiting language in 2A, nor was it intended or implied. The founders believed 2A and the citizen militias were necessary to the security of a free state. They said as much in the 2nd Amendment itself. Yet the 2nd Amendment cannot fulfill that intended purpose if the citizen militias are limited to obsolete technology.

Maybe one can argue that 2A should be changed or repealed, but until that day arrives, the most logical interpretation of 2A is that it protects firearms most suitable to militia service.

a reply to: vor78

I don't think the founding fathers ever envisaged the type of weaponry we now class as safe for public use and/or defense.

Nobody is coming to get you so why you would require militia in this day of age is beyond me.

Also no matter how well armed or defended these militia are the federal government would simply wipe the floor with them in 2 seconds flat should they ever be inclined to do so.

Plenty of other first world nations with gun control laws function perfectly well and without the murder and crime rates that are associated with such weaponry.

All i'm saying is it may be time to rethink the current state of affairs with regards to the world in this day of age as opposed to 100s of years ago.

a reply to: projectvxn


"What the hell is an assault grade weapon?

Well the definition varies among regulating jurisdictions but usually includes semi-automatic firearms with a detachable magazine and a pistol grip, and sometimes other features such as a flash suppressor or barrel shroud.

"Have you ever heard of the Puckle gun"

It's a primitive crewed, manually operated flintlock revolver, the forerunner to weapons such as the Gatling gun.

"Or the Girandoni Air Rifle?"

Nope that's anew one to me.

"The founders weren't interested in preserving muskets. They were interested in preserving liberty, which the modern rifle helps to ensure as much as the old musket."

The founding fathers were interested in preserving there own freedom. The muskets hardly the same as a modern rifle such as the Armalite or even Kalashnikov, that's like comparing a fire cracker to a stick of C4.

a reply to: 0zzymand0s

It has little to do with the wording, more to do with the fact that the world spins and progress has somewhat negated the necessary for such an amendment in its present forum.

To be fair i would love to play with weaponized drones, heavy cruisers, air support, and artillery as much as the next Man but realistically its all fun and games till someone loses an eyeball, and that would be apt to happen.

So until such weapons have proverbial child proof caps probobly best to keep them away from normal citizens and let them play Call of Duty in a virtual environment as apposed to on our streets.

a reply to: andy06shake

I don't know if we can definitively say what the founders believed about future weapons technology or how well they understood the potential progression of firearms technology. The main limitation of the firearms technology of their era was the lack of self-contained ammunition and the ability to manufacture it. Did they understand that? Again, that's something we can't answer for certain. There are, however, known examples of repeating flintlocks (Kalthoff and Lorenzoni rifles, for example; Projectvxn provided others) that date back even as far as the late 1600s, so the concept of a repeating firearm wasn't something foreign to them. The one thing we do know is that once self-contained ammunition was invented and became somewhat commercially viable sometime around 1840 or 1850, the floodgates opened and we literally went from primarily fielding musket-type weapons with soldiers launching volley fire at the start of the Civil War to the invention of the machine gun in just 22 years.